about 10,000 american troops are stationed at the base. it serves as regional headquarters for u.s. central command. it says the u.s. military has been using it since the days after september 11 attacks when a position planes there to target the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan. later, it became the main u.s. air operations hub in the region . u.s. commanders used the base to coordinate missions during the wars as well as strikes against the islamic state in syria. announcer: live coverage on c-span.

announcer: the house is coming in now to finish work on the 2026 defense programs and policy bill. amendment debate will continue leading up to a final passage vote expected this afternoon. live coverage on c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. heavenly father we pray not our will but yours be done this day. don't answer our prayers with words we want to hear but cause us to hear how you wish us to respond to the concerns for which we pray. don't listen to us when we ask for your favor lest we be inclined to demand more. but grant us the faith to trust in your provision when what we have doesn't seem enough. don't shower us with blessings we desire. but bless us with more of you that we would desire nothing else. don't lead us away from the challenges that lie before us, but challenge us to follow you as you lead us through them. don't quell our anxieties that hurt our hearts with worry, but

transform our hearts. that they would seek first your righteousness. do not forsake us. do not be far from us, o lord, our god, but come quickly to help us this day. for you, o lord, are our savior, and it is in your sovereign name we pray. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house the approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. dexter. ms. dexter: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the skipper from texas is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to recognize and celebrate a remarkable milestone for the city of arlington, texas. this year marks the 80th anniversary of the arlington chamber of commerce. mr. williams: as the city's oldest and largest business organization, the chamber has been a pillar of the community for eight decades. serving over 1,000 members and advocating for businesses of all sizes. the hardworking families and entrepreneurs of main street or the backbone -- are the backbone of our economy and it is vital they have the resources they need to succeed. for 80 years arlington chamber members have worked tirelessly to address key issues facing small businesses throughout the community. throughout securing and expanding resources, the chamber has brought immeasurable growth to our city. i commend the arlington chamber

for 80 years of excellence and i thank them for their continued commitment to serving texas. in god we trust. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from organ seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. dexter: mr. speaker, i rise today not just as a member of congress but as a proud oregonian. donald trump is once again threatening to deploy troops against american civilians. we have already seen him abuse federal pouer in cities like d.c. and l.a. now he's targeting poreland. let me be clear. donald trump is punishing cities like portland simply for standing against his authoritative power. this isn't about safety, it's political retribution, plain and simple. portland doesn't need his help. we are resilient, creative, and strong.

to my fellow oregonians i'm standing with the governor, the attorney general, our delegation and local leaders to defend our communities and our rights. i will use every tool available, legislation, litigation, and public pressure to stop this dangerous overreach. we will not be bullied. we will not be silenced. and we will not back down. because in oregon, we fly with our own wings. we rise, we resist, and we stand together. undon't youd, and unafraid. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house the rep for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last week i rose to recognize the dawn of the newest college football rivalry in the great state of georgia, today i rise to honor the winner of the inaugural clash of highway 29, the la grange

college panthers led by coach wes dodson. panthers defeated the point university sky hawks 36-14. i attended the game with the president of la grange college, the president of point university, and administrators of both schools. mr. speaker, this matchup was exciting from the beginning. on the first play of the opening drive la grange convert add double pass for a touchdown. on the ensuing kickoff, point responded with a 90-yard kick return for a touchdown. the grangers offense was led by three talented players, quarterback henry, who finished with 265 passing yards and three touchdowns. kicker landon, who was perfect on the night with three field goals and two p.a.t.'s. and wide receiver damien thompson who in his firster collegiate game was honor as the usa south atlantic conferences offensive rookie of the week. as we celebrate the panthers' victory, we remember their

teammate, marquis rice, who tragically passed away during the off-season. the la break college panthers honored him with an incredible performance and indomitable spirit and indisputable victory on saturday evening. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarksment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to rack nies and honor my parents, chris and jack morrison. i'm a life lodge democrat, but i was raised in a primarily republican family. ms. morrison: we debated politics and issues of the day around the dinner table. we didn't always agree but respected and learned from each. other brother and i were encouraged to stand up for what we believed in and we knew they were loved and always had our backs. we were raised to believe in the promise of america and with the expectation it was our responsibility to serve our community and other people.

my parents lived that ethic and led by example through serving in the military, running for office, working for nonprofits, through their many and deep friendships, care for our extended family, embrace of their son and daughter-in-law and deep engagement with their grandchildren. we learned that service was important and expected and we endeavored to live up to an example. my parents are my heroes. let me say directly to them as they are in the gallery today, i am so proud and grateful that you are my parents and i love you very much. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members that the rules do not permit references to individuals in the gallery but it was heartfelt. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. president donald trump is cracking down on murderers who threaten american families. trump has signed executive order to eliminate cashless bail. this will prevent democrat district attorneys from putting criminals back on the streets murdering random citizens. this could have prevented the merciless murder of ukrainian refugee on august 22. in charlotte, north carolina. her killer had 14 previous arrests. her mercy -- merciless murder was concealed for 10 days by the charlotte mayor as she face add primary election yesterday. the mayor should resigned as proposed by congressman raffle norman. i'm grateful -- as long as lyles is mayor will i avoid the charlotte airport because every passenger in charlotte is at risk of being stabbed to death. in conclusion god bless our

troops as the global war on terrorism continues. trump administrationp is reinstituting existing laws to protect american families with peace through strength revealing war putin lies insulting trump and mocking trump. while putin is invading poland with iranian drones 100 mills from belarus as putin tries to resurrect the failed soviet union. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. magaziner: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. magaziner: mr. speaker, i rise today for the 38th time to call on the trump administration to restore lifesaving food aid for starving children around the world. it has been eight months since the trump administration put a stop work order into place and as a result there are thousands of boxes of lifesaving aid meant to save the lives of starving children sitting in warehouses in rhode island and georgia instead of getting to kids who

need them. mr. speaker, this week we are voting on the annual defense bill. i just want to point out this is a national security issue because when starvation and famine are permitted to progress unimpeded around the world, it yields terrorism, increased violence, and extremism that is a risk to our own nation's defense. when we step back, our adversaries like china step in to save the day in the developing world. that is bad for the united states and for democracies all across the globe. mr. speaker, i call on the trump administration once again, restore lifesaving food aid for children. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute mr. davis: mr. speaker, i have

exciting news to share about a remarkable young woman and her name is mary ray hardy. the election results are in and mary gray was elected as spring creek high school student body president. her victory isn't just of any win here, mary gray may be one of the few if not the only student with down syndrome in our state serving as her school student body president. her classmates elected her not because of her down syndrome, but because they believe in her. i have been around mary gray and she's nothing but amazing. with the news of her election, it brought tears of happiness and they flowed freely. congratulations, mary gray, i'm sorry, madam president. actually that has a special

ring, president hardy. keep working hard. know that your congressman is praying for your successful presidency and for your school. your story's part of the american story. your community, your parents, and i am incredibly proud of you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. mace: thank you, mr. speaker. when solicitors don't prosecute crimes, when judges and rogue magistrates let thugs out on the streets of america, cases like irina happen, murders like irina happen. i want to pay special attention to a certain solicitor in south carolina who is not doing her job. who is lying to south carolinians. that is solicitor scarlett wilson of the ninth judicial

circuit. scarlett, i want you to know that i'm watching. when you leak evidence, when you politicize rape, and when you leak evidence of rape victims, when you leak evidence of victims who are being stalked or who have been beaten that south carolina is watching. that i am watching. if you don't do your job to project south carolinians, there will be consequences. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i will remind members to make their comments directly to the chair. now for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on may 30 a vernea park in maryland's third congressional district, one of our youngest members, we lost one of our youngest members, hugh. ms. elfreth: he was not even 18

months old when he died of sunned infant death. his parents who are here today described him as joy personified. he loved going to the park. circle time at the librairery. and get be bops in the nose at bath time with his loved ones hugh read over 1,000 books. it was a dear friend to our public library system. in his memory our community is now building hugh's corner at the library. mr. speaker, there are approximately 400 cases of sudc in the u.s. every year. without a known cause or form of prevention, the n.i.h. research conducted on sudc is critical and could be lifesaving. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting full funding for the n.i. hurricanes' lifesaving work so not another family has to experience what they have endured. i yield back. 12:15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of a.m. erie corps foster grandparent program. this is one of the most impactful senior sches program in the country. grandparents have provided support, mentorship and care to children and youth. through this service, they help young people thrive. foster grandparents volunteer their time to help children through tutoring and mentoring and classroom support to teachers. they have been helping people in need. mr. speaker, many of us have fond memories of our own grandparents and i am glad that the foster grandparent program

help connect seniors with youth to foster relationships. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today in memory of sarah katz whose life was cut short three years ago today. a native of jersey city, sarah devoted her life to helping others working with the american heart association and children's hospital in philadelphia and raise aware of heart health and c.p.r. she was admired by many in our community including the university of pennsylvania, she was deeply loved by her family, her parents jylan pikeal and

sister dana. her family turned to action honoring sarah's life advocating for change. it is a privilege to introduce the sarah katz and save lives to help families. every step of the way their love for sarah is the foafer front of their advocacy. help drive change that will save lives. may sarah's life be a blessing. i yield become. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today with a grateful but sat heart to honor the life of senator fred harris, a champion for justice, democracy and the people of new

mexico and oklahoma. ms. stansbury: he fought for native american and civil rights and return sacred lands to our tribes and helped lift millions out of poverty. his impact goes far beyond this. he created a fellowship that brought students to washington, d.c., to give them firsthand experience in public service. he was a mentor, an educator, a dear, dear friend and a hero to so many in our state and across the nation. and while we grieve his passing, his legacy will live on and the countless people whose lives he touched and continue to fight for justice and his dedication to the legacy this unions leaves behind. i yield become. pursuant to house resolution 6823 and rule 18, the chair declares the committee in the

whole house for further consideration of h.r. 3838, would the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3838 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities for the department of defense, military construction and for defense activity of the department of energy, to prescribe military strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee rows on september 9, amendments en bloc printed in part a of house report 119-255 offered by

the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number is 13 printed in part a of house report 119255, and for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 119-255 offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682 the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed, each will control 20 minutes. mr. norman: my amendment prohibits of gender transmission procedures including surgery or medication. such a family members program

provides resources to military families with special needs. this program is designed to military spouses, children or other dependent family members who require medical or educational services such as individuals with asthma, autism, chronic respiratory illnesses and intellectual disabilities and much more. the air force suggested using this program for families who want to help their child transition. democrats introduced a pill to expand this program to include transgender dependents and specifically list gender disfor yeah as a qualifying quieg -- qualifying need. this program needs to be original intent by prohibiting

the use of the program for the provision or referral for gender transition procedures such as gender surgery or medication. exceptional family members program known as efmp should be used fully to support families with special needs and chronic illnesses not for gender transition procedures. the program, as it was intended specifically identifies certain things that identifying families with special needs which includes the following, potentially life threatening conditions or chronic, current or chronic mental health conditions, asthma or other respiratory related diagnose no, sir cease with chronic recurring, intellectual development delays. attention deficit disorder or

attention deficit hyper activity disorders, chronic conditions that require adaptive equipment which assisted technology devices for environmental or technical considerations. allowing transgender procedures through the efmp goes against the very intention that the program was designed to have and provided valuable resources to families who otherwise would not have the funds to do so. gender transition is not covered under any of the criteria for identify individuals eligible for the efmp. i ask for adoption of this amendment and yield the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. norman: i reserve. mr.smith: i claim time in

opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr.smith: i yield myself two minutes. there is going to be five amendments now that are all targeting the transgender community and i want to make sure we understand some broad themes why these amendments are problematic. the transagenda ircommunity has been targeted and discriminated against aggressively. if you control through right-wing radio, they are called freaks and weirdoes and dehumanized that has led to violence against the transgender community. all five of these amendment, put an ex clay makes point on tay and continue to dehumanize transgender people that is dangerous. that's number one. number two, transgender people

exist. that's just a fact. gender dysphoria is a medical fact. no medical person degrees. not even debatable. what do you do about it? what treatments are appropriate in a given set of sickeres? i think it is wide open to have that conversation, what should the medical professional do. when you have a transgender woman or pan, how does that work in term of sportswomen sports or men sports and could have a conversation, but acting like transgender people don't exist further contributes to their dehumanization and discrimination against them. none of these amendments are remotely necessary. they are an effort to take advantage of a culture war partisan issue to drive a wedge into this bill.

it doesn't belong here. on this particular amendment, if you are a service member who has a child experiencing gender dysphoria, this amendment says your child doesn't exist. that's not happening. how does it make a service member feel? i have met with children who went through gender dysphoria -- i yield myself an additional minute, who credit the treatment they received absolutely saving their lives. i had three hip surgeries and two hip replacements and probably didn't need any of them. i didn't hear anybody here on the floor saying ban hip replacements. this decision should be made by doctors and partes, not by congressmen and legislators ors

this is restricting health care for young people and other family members. it is bigoted, discriminatory and unnecessary. and i hope this body will turn it down. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. norman: we have an obligation to keep our country safe and military to risk it all in defense of america. my friend on the opposite side of the aisle talks about hip surgery. that is entirely different than a sex change regulates that doesn't say that the person -- but the funding -- that's not where the money should come from. how about telling that child who has asthma, no treatment. a child with a mental

impairment, there is no money to do it, have to put the money towards someone who isn't sure what sex they are. not a priority in the military nor should the funding be set aside for that. it is a set amount of dollars that have to go towards this valuable appropriation process and it's not to determine what somebody's sex is. decide that with their own money at other times. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr.smith: i yield myself one minute. how much time does he have? the chair: he has one minute remaining. mr.smith: number one, this does not restrict other medical treatments for anybody else. has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

second of all, it doesn't just eliminate sex change operations but eliminates any treatment for gender dysphoria, a lot of times that is mental health treatment. it eliminates it for everybody. third, we need to put our servicemembers to focus on their mission. if you are a service member overseas and you have a child who is experiencing gender distore yeah and told your child who is in a dangerous situation cannot get the health care they need, that is not going to help that service member be the best possible fighter he can be for this country. we should not be denying health care to our servicemembers for the health care they need. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: over the course of five years, the pentagon spent

$15 million, 15 million treating 1892 transgender troops including 11.5 million for psychotherapy and 3.1 million for surgeries according to the department of defense. the price tag defense. of the price tag can range from $8,000 to $100,000. and to compare hip surgery to a sex change operation is two different world, two different thoughts we just have a completely difference of aopinion. i think you take a survey of any of the troops that are serving this country, they would -- vast majority would say that transgender surgeries have no place in the military. and the public to be borne with that price tag is to be honest with you, incomprehensible. i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: we are not talking about sex change operations. this is another example of the profound ignorance surrounding treatment for gender dysphoria. we are talking about any treatment. with that i yield the balance of our time to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. tokuda. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. let's be clear. the exceptional family member program does not pay for medical care. its purpose is simple, to ensure that military families are stationed where medical and educational services they need are available. this amendment misrepresents the mission and it undermines it. we ask our service members to sacrifice so much for this country. in many cases even their lives. as a mother, i would never,

never ask them to sacrifice their child's well-being. that's not just offensive, that's cruel and inhumane. gender affirming care is health care. denying it sends a harmful message to military families with transgender children. that their needs, their dignity, who they are, their very lives do not matter. and when we harm their families, when we hurt their children, we undermine the very readiness we are so focused on as a military. the very people that we rely on to be on the frontlines defending this nation every day. our service -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. tokuda: we should do the same for them. vote no on this amendment. the chair: all time expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

something. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to -- agreed. to the gentleman from washington state is recognized. mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 presented in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14, printed in part a of house report number 119-255, offered by ms. mace of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentlewoman

from south carolina, ms. mace, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from south carolina. ms. mace: thank you, mr. chair. this is a second of five, only five, i think there should be more, amendments regarding gender affirming care, tran use. castration is not a mistake by the way. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say that castration is health care and there is nothing more dehumanizing than going after the trannies out there. one recently shot two young school children in minnesota. it is a mental illness. and it needs to stop. and we can stop it in our military right now. this amendment in last year's ndaa we took the important step of banning tricare from covering medical interventions to treat mental dysphoria. this was a strong statement by the congress in opposition to the mutilation of kids. however the language allows the department of war to continue to perform an array of gender affirming child abuse on

military dependents and continue to mutilate our service members. my amendment is simple, it would prohibit try care -- tri care across the board from surgical mutilation of our war fighters and their dependence under the guise of health care. our government should not be in the business of mutilating our fellow citizens, particularly our war fighters. with our tax dollars. with your tax dollars. this is not served to advance our national security. it serves only to advance a dangerous and radical ideology that the american people have soundly rejected. not only have the american people rejected the chemical and surgical mutilation of their fellow citizens, but much of the science doesn't support it as well. the science shows playing into the delusions of these individuals is not compassionate. it's cruel. numerous studies have shown not only do these cross sex hormones dramatically increase the risk

of infertility in sexual dysfunction, they actually increase depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among those -- on who these medical procedures are performed. the purpose of our military is to fight and to win wars. it is to create war fighters. killers. not to participate in the latest progressive fad. under the biden administration, we divided -- diverted money away from readiness and lethality to promote extreme gender ideology and fund sex changes in our military. under the trump administration, we finally recognized gender dysphoria for what it is, a mental illness, which precludes military service. our armed services are not a laboratory to study the effects of irreversible surgeries or hormones. our service exists -- does not expense to provide experimental treatments to those with conditions should be qualifying. they are mentally ill and should not be serving in the united states military. this amendment says clearly the

purpose of our military is to defend the united states and not validate identity politics. it makes sure tri care serves the mission of protecting health not undermining it. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state seek recognition? mr. shoot: claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. smith: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i want to thank the maker of this amendment for making it clear what the problem is, trannies, mentally ill, insulting transgender people. this is exactly what these amendments are about. about a right wing culture war to target the transgender community and make them something less than human. if you listen to those comments, you get a feel for why that's a problem. number two, this amendment doesn't have anything to do with transgender people serving in the militarily president trump has already implemented that bigoted policy to drive them out of the militarily this is about health care for children experiencing gender dysphoria. what this amendment does is it bans that health care treatment

for children experiencing gender dysphoria. i have made a series of arguments on the other amendment why that is a bad idea. the bottom line is this is a legitimate problem and the studies have often shown that this is beneficial treatment that is now being denied. denied by the united states congress. this is something that doctors and patients should decide. if we want to offer an amendment saying please look at this issue, here's some studies, ask the medical community reach conclusions, that that's one thing. banning it doesn't make sense. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from south carolina is recognized. mitts mace: how much time is remaying? the chair: two minutes. ms. mace: thank you. if not wanting to castrate kids is right wing culture war, sign me up. this is not the kind of thing that should be happening to children or military dependents anywhere in our country. and castrating kids, it's not

health care, either. we are talking about something very permanent. we don't allow our kids to be tattooed until they are adults. we don't allow them to drink or smoke or vote until they are adults. but you are saying that it's ok to castrate a kid because of this weirdo freak ideology, yes. these are weirdoes. these are freaks. these are people who are mentally deranged, mentally ill. this should not be funded by american taxpayers. thank you. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from washington state is recognized. miss smith: current law -- mr. smith: current law bans sterilization. that's a lot of crap about what this is about. current law bans what she's talking about. what is being banned here is any treatment for gender dysphoria. that is completely wrong. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. jacobs. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. jacobs: thank you, mr. ranking member. as you all know president trump

has already kicked out transgender troops from the military. despite the fact that they are willing and able to serve and despite the fact that it will cost billions of dollars and decades to recruit and train the replacements. so this proposed ban on medical care is unnecessary and redundant for our service members because we know the goal here isn't actually about policy. it's a symbolic punishment. it's to send a false political message that transhealth care is illegitimate even though those of us who live in reality know that transhealth care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. it is supported by every major medical association in the u.s., representing more than 1.3 million u.s. doctors. let's be clear what we mean about gender affirming care. we don't only mean surgery. sometimes it's just using the correct pronounce. sometimes it's mental health care. sometimes it's hormone therapy. and yes, sometimes it's surgery. this ban would also take away mental health care from the transchildren of our service

members. we know that transyouth face significant mental health challenges not because they are trans, to be clear, but because of the external factors they face like social isolation, discrimination, lack of affirmation, the stress of not getting the care they need, having to hear colleagues of mine say horrible things about them on the house floor, and like any parent, if a service members' child can't get the care they need, they will be distracted from their mission. so ultimately this ban will hurt our military readiness and likely lead service members to leave the military. this amendment isn't only bigoted. it's shortsighted and hurt our national security. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. she already yielded back. mr. smith: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/4 minutes. mr. smith: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from vermont,

miss about lant -- miss balancant. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. balint: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition -- opposition to this amendment. if passed this amendment would immediately prohibit tri care coverage of mental health counseling for transgender young people. let me repeat that. this amendment would take away mental health care services for transgender kids of service members. that's what we are talking about. this amendment is intentionally discriminatory and result in higher rates of mental health issues and suicide for transyouth. kids who already experience higher rates of depression and anxiety and suicide compared to their piers -- peers. republicans' all out assault on health care right now has put these people into a state of

constant fear and anxiety. imagine that you are a service member, a parent, and you hear from a doctor that congress has banned medically necessary care endorsed by every major medical association that would literally help save your child's life. all young people in this country should have access to the mental health care that they need. full stop. forcing service members to choose between being able to provide health care for their family, for their kids, or serving their country does not make our military stronger, does not make our country safer, and it will not no matter what the member says, it will not make transgender people in this country disappear. i urge my colleagues to vote no.

mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- mr. smith: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina will be postponed. .. thechair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in part a of house report 119-255. flop the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part a of house report 119-255, offered by

ms. mace of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentlewoman from south carolina, ms. mace and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. ms. mace: women have fought for decades to have equal opportunity in education and athletics, as the first woman to graduate from the citadel, no one understands that more than i do. women have fought for this. misogyny has focused forcing women to undress and rob women of opportunities and live women with lifelong scars. my amendment would prohibit service academies allowing a mid shipman who is male to participate in activities

designed for females. there is significant, physical, biological and i dare say science or scientific differences between men and women. biological men have greater muscle mass, bone density and physical strength than women do. this is very obvious. allowing men to participate in women's sports robs. 900 medals have been won by biological men, stolen from women who worked hard to earn them. women have worked hard to earn records that have been shattered by mediocre, men -- mentally ill men being women. this is the case last year in college volleyball rather than face a team, rather than face a traumatic brain injury when a

man hit them in the face with a volleyball. there is nothing about robbing them. allowing biological men to participate in women's sports is income patible with the values of our servicemembers, our service academies and notions of fairness and good old fashioned common sense. i urge members to support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from south carolina reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady from new mexico seek recognition? ms. stansbury: i rise to claim time in opposition for the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. stansbury: i rise in opposition today to this amendment and in defense of our nation's servicemembers. our raimann the chair man have negotiated a bipartisan ndaa

which invests in military pay raises, quality of life and many important aspects for military readiness and should be focused on that in the national defense authorization act not another amendment blaming transpeople. and if you ever needed proof that transpeople live rent free in the minds of the g.o.p., look no further. there are no known transgender people serving in our academies because of the transgender military ban. so what is this amendment all about? the g.o.p. obsession with bullying transpeople is weird, it's invasive, it's abusive, it's discriminatory and it's dangerous to our military readiness. i wonder what you think about

words have power. you are standing in one of the most powerful institutions in the united states but in the world. my colleagues are using this platform to bully a population that is vulnerable here in the united states. and i have to say, if my colleagues across the aisle are so again inly concerned about the well-being of women serving in the military and sexual violence, how about actually addressing that and the 45% of women who have reported that they have been sexually harassed just last year alone or dare i say if you are concerned about sexual violence that you release the epstein files. how about that? but this amendment reflects a sustained villainization of the transcommunity and lgbtq+

community that continues day after day on this floor. the transcommunity represents only 1% of the population. you wouldn't think that listening to this chamber blues they are spending time when we should be talking about military readiness but bullying people at our service academies. this has nothing to do with national security. i say to my colleagues, let's get back to work on behalf of the american people and defend this hateful amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. ms. mace: how much time remains. the chair: the gentlelady has three minutes remaining. ms. mace: imagine being a woman on the floor of the house of representatives screaming i dare

say screeching into the microphone to put your daughter in danger, to have your daughters' scholarships, your daughters' opportunities stolen from her because some guy, some mentally ill deranged freak of a man thinks he is a woman and put on a skirt and wave his willie nilly in the locker room and that he is equal to a woman. we fought so long for rights. we didn't get the right to vote until 1919, 1920. the seat of south carolina, we didn't elect our first republican woman until the house of representatives, to congress, until 2020. i was sworn into office in january of 2021. we have fought hard. there are so many opportunities

for women yet. we never had a female president of the united states. i'm not going to let some guy in a skirt come around take away opportunities because someone who is mentally ill and take these opportunities away. not go to go happen, not on my watch and start with the service academies and protect these women who are going to fight and serve and protect freedoms here in our country to make sure opportunities are not stolen from them by the mentally ill. ms. stansbury: i yield to the gentlelady from oregon. ms. delbene: i rise today in opposition to this amendment which would ban transgender women from participating but

leave the challenges on all women's bodies and making academies less safe for any woman no matter who they are. military personnel undergo medical advancements and this would be allowed to subjected increase and invasive targeting and harassment. athletic associations and the service academies are better prepared to understand and provide respect for transgender people and fairness. these associations and academies should be addressing this issue and not politicians especially politicians who do not understand that transmen are not men who put on skirts. and this and enlisting in the future while making our military

less safe for all women and embedding discrimination into the law. this is a classic example of politicians to insert themselves where they don't belong and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. and i yield back. ms. mace: how much time remains? the chair: one minute. ms. mace: i want to address the topic of sexual violence particularly with my female colleagues, i have offered dozens of bills relating to sexual violence and very few of my democrat colleagues will co-sponsor them in a bipartisan way? why is it that? i don't want men and i say the word trannie but don't want to protect women except when it is good. when i gave a harrowing speech

on the floor of this house on february 10 earlier this year, not a single female colleague across the aisle as i talked about my personal experience with sexual violence, not one of them spoke up in defense of women who are victims and survivors of sexual violence. i find it offensive and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new mexico. ms. stansbury: i just remind us we are here to talk about the national defense authorization act and stand with our servicemembers who sign up to serve this great nation and we will stand with our servicemembers. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina. those in favor, say aye. those

opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it it. ms. stansbury: we ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south carolina will be postponed. it is in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 116-255. ms. mace: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 119-255 offered by ms. mace of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentlelady from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from south carolina. ms. mace: this amendment is about restoring biological

truth. restoring science. my colleagues across the aisle have pushed a fiction saying your gender is whatever you say it is and that you can change your mind at any time, thinking is a gender option. under four years of the biden administration they are trying this fiction in every facet of our government and demanded we all play along with the lie men can be women, women can be men and people can be both either other or a unich and they share the dleution that people can be an attack helicopter because that is an option for some of these maniacs. there are two genders, they are designated at birth and they cannot be changed. this is basic biology.

biology 101. not about feelings, ideology, it's not about politics, it's not about trying to make one half of 1% of the population happy. under this amendment, the secretary of war will be prohibited from collecting information for a form or survey. only male and female. those are the only two options that should be listed for questions about sex and gender and the secretary will be required to reject a form that lists something other than male or female. this ideology is not harmful. it is could rose i have. it is undermining women and seeks to subjective truth and we must reject our foundational truths our society has held for thousands of years. this ideology has forced

institutions to adopt pronounce, they, them, it, as if language itself must be bent to their radicalized ideology. they have taken what is obvious to every civilization, men are men and women are women and turn it into a political controversy. enough is enough. this amendment would put an end to the department of war and restores common sense at the department and i can't believe this is a debate we need to have on the floor of the house. we are going to hear opposition from science. women are distinct from men. and e knows every one of my colleagues know this is truth even if they're too afraid to say it. they have allowed this to erase

women and hand over power to men. it's about forms and paperwork, it's about whether we'll defend women and whether we'll erase them. it's about whether the strongest military on earth will be gunned in retail or captured by ideology. so i urge my colleagues to stand with the truth, stand with women, stand with our military and vote in favor of this amendment and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from california wish to be recognized? >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. takano: americans understand that transgender individuals exist and have served our country with distinction and honor for almost a decade and were able to do so openly. yet this amendment seeks to erase the existence of

transgender people, whether service members or d.o.d. employee,000,000,000 prohibiting the secretary of defense from collecting informing about gender identity on any form or survey let me be clear. trans people do exist. and their experiences matter. nondiscrimination and inclusion are core american values. this amendment is about exclusion. and erasure. collecting data on the experiences of transgender people, the experience of transgender people at the department of defense is critical to addressing the challenges the community faces. every person that steps up to serve our nation in union form, including trans people should be treated with the utmost respect. these service members have continuously shown that they are fit, qualify and willing to serve. this amendment would create real obstacles for transgender people by requiring d.o.d. systems to

list the wrong gender for transgender people. discrepancies between these systems and trans people's legal documents will cause a host of issues including complicating background checks. this administration is already forcing transgender service members out of the military just because of who they are. the americans i know honor everyone who has the courage to serve. they do not support kicking people out of the military. people we've invested time and millions of dollars in training into, just to score political points. just to score political points. trump's transmilitary ban is cruel and shameful. now republicans want to add insult to injury and try to erase trans service members' existence with this amendment. enough is enough. i am proud to stand before this chamber and support all of our

service members. i want to make it clear turnover trans service member currently in the process of being forced out by this administration. my democratic colleagues in congress and i value your sacrifices and service to our nation. we will and will keep fighting for you because you have put your life -- you have put your life on the line for america. you deserve the same rights and treatment as every other service member. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from south carolina is recognized. ms. mace: how much time remains? the chair: the gentlewoman has a minute and a half remaining. ms. mace: super. i want to say that a form that you say whether you're male or female, how you were born, what god gave you, is not an obstacle. just the mere comment that filling out a form, am i male or female, that it is such a huge,

or nate, objective obstacle, that it's adversarial, shows you how mentally ill this ideology is that fill ought a form that's biologically pure, biologically true, would trigger you. would it trigger them so much to shoot up a military base? we had a tranny shoot up a catholic school in minnesota a couple of weeks ago killing two beautiful young children because they're mentally ill. these people should not be serving in our military. when they accuse of us of erasing trannies in the military, yes. if you're mentally ill, you don't is the right to serve. we need war fighters. with pea need men and women who will be strong on the front of our battle lines. iran is on the march, china is nipping at our heels. russia. we need men and women who, rather than worry about hey, my this, a eunuch, an attack

helicopter, whatever gender dysphoria they have that day is who are we going to make safe today? what freedom are we fighting for? how are we going to make americans safe here and abroad. that's the mission. our national security. that's the mission of the united states military and it will stay there with donald trump as president. thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, my colleague. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

thank you. for these watching who are trans, you are loved, you are blessed. keep pushing. i rise to oppose this amendment. data is not just number, it is the story and reflection of live redialties of real people. this amendment is to stop data collection and it is clear, it is an attempt to erase the existence of transgender service members at the department of defense without data collection the -- at the department of defense. without data collection the department of defense cannot address the challenges of lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning service members they may face. transgender employees will have a difficult time filing equal unemployment opportunity complaint without accurate data. employees will have inconsistent records and incorrect gender markers in department of defense systems making it harder to access health services. i yield back my time. thank you so much.

the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. takano: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. takano: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from washington state, ms. randall. ms. randall: thank you, mr. speaker. i was going to say some nice things about rising in support of a bipartisan ndaa that supports housing and health care and child care but i have sat here appalled at the language that we have heard on the house floor from the other side of the aisle. i stand in strong opposition to the person from north carolina's amendment. i have sat listening to her violent, dangerous, and dehumanizing vendetta against parents, children, and trans people trying to live their lives, and trying to defend our country. this is a pattern of the unhinged political war on trans people. that this person from north

carolina, the republican party, and the president are waging. denying the ability of out trans folked to serve in our military isn't enough for these people. the person from north carolina is trying to erase the existence of trans people, from form, from hallways, from our military, and choosing violence. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. takano: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina

will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 119-255, offered by ms. mace of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentlewoman from south carolina, ms. mace, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from south carolina. ms. mace: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is straightforward and would ensure the use of sex-specific spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms on military installations is based on biological sex, not ideology. women in uniform deserve dignity, privacy, and absolute

safety. protecting women's spaces shouldn't be partisan. it should be common sense. under the biden administration, the federal government decided to abandon common sense and aloud men to enter women's spaces and violate their privacy and violate their dignity. under president trump, the government has restored basic biological truth. men are men and women are women. i applaud the president for his commitment to protecting women, but a future administration could bring us right back to this insanity. the biden administration sacrificed the dignity and safety of women to appease radical gender lunatic ideology. our women in uniform shouldn't be forced to suffer indignities to apiece the policies of the other side of the aisle, the democrats who support this nonsense. allowing delusional men to use women's locker room, restroom, changing rooms, is an affront to women and it's reckless. in virginia, a registered sex

offenders with more than a dozen quicks was aloud to use the women's changing room by claiming he was a woman. for six months he exposed himself to women and kids. this is who the left is defending today. pedophiles and men that want to go in women's space, and rape them, asalt them, expose themselves to little girls and our daughters. in california, a 17-year-old girl was terrorized by the presence of a man in her locker room while she showered. in georgia, 51-year-old man pretending to be a woman undressed in the women's restroom and exposed himself to shoppers. in virginia, a girl was sexually assaulted by a biological male in a women's bathroom. in oklahoma a young woman was beaten for daring to say she was uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a man. this is not theoretical. these aren't just random incidents. this is an epidemic. they are the natural predictable

consequence of poll schist pretend biology doesn't matter. these are the policies of left. the policies the democrats who say follow the science, except for women, we don't care about you. we hate you, we want to take everything away from you, won't follow science on this one. we've opened the door for predators to abuse women and girls and daughters. our daughters. are growing one something we never had to distinguish when our generation was growing up. we're putting our daughters in immeant -- imminent danger, in harm's way. and this has to stop. women shouldn't be forced to share their private spaces with men. this amendment says we're going back to reality. privacy and safety matters. dignity matters. women matter. and i encourage my colleagues to protect all women. and i urge all members to support this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to claim the time in

opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jacobs: thank you, i yield myself such time as i may consume. trans people deserve the common dignity of safely using the restroom. besides that let's take the gentlelady's point at face value. she wants to protect women, great. so do i. bathroom bans don't protect women. the williams institute at the ucla school of law even did a study on it. and there is zero evidence that allowing trans people to use the correct bathroom increases the risk to others. in fact it's actually opposite. we have seen that cis women are harassed when people try to enforce or decree bathroom bans. earlier this year at a buffalo wild wings in minnesota, a server followed a teenage girl into the women's restroom and demand shed prove she was a girl. when the server didn't believe her she unzipped her hoodie to

show she had breasts. that is the actual reality of bathroom bans. and even the idea of bathroom bans. harassment, discrimination and body exams. we don't need service members acting like vigilantes to enforce this policy either by surveillance, profiling or physical inspections. our servicewomen go throughism in shouldn't be inviting even more harass. we don't need this amendment opening up the pentagon and the entire u.s. government to a massive lawsuit. this isn't good policy. this doesn't protect women. this is based on misinformation and i urge my colleagues to voteno. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from south carolina is recognized. ms. mace: ironic my colleague women are harassed going into the bathroom because no wants a trannie person in the bathroom. because of this whacko ideology

not bested on science is pervasive and teaching it in schools and forcing kids to use pronounce and protect women because the left has gone so far, not just the left, but mainstream democrat policy going after our girls. and you heard my colleagues say there is no evidence after i read evidence of instances of trannies assaulting women, our daughters, kids. they say no evidence exists that's because democrats will not show you or tell you or share with you the facts. but the average american we see it every day now. it's everywhere and people are sick and tired of it and want this harassment to stop, the trannies need to stop harassing america. they say our servicemembers, our

service women go through enough, you're right. we want to protect them. in the most intimate moments in the dressing room, no man should be watching them. we don't want more lawsuits. it's democrats who sue states and republican parties over congressional lines and apportionment and all those things that tie our elections up in lawsuits. it's their party, not ours, we are fighting back and protect every woman and girl in the united states but particularly for our servicemembers, our women in uniform. we are the party of common sense and party of women. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mr. jacobs: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new

mexico. ms. leger fernandez: republicans have a series of amendments targeted transpeople and service people to make decisions about health care. all of these amendments do not do anything to make us safer or honor our commitment to the servicemen and women who are willing to give their lives to this country. these amendments are part of a culture war that is intended to make americans angry, divided and fearful. they want to rename it the department of war because they are in a war against the idea that the american life is something that includes all of us that we can all belong. this proposed facilities' ban is a huge violation of privacy and make all women and girls less safe. the republicans require menstrual monitoring?

checking reproductive organs. girls and women who are tall, strong and gender noncould be forming are being questioned and yelled at. republicans always want to dictate from d.c. what we can do with our bodies and that's not freedom. i stand with all our servicemembers, including transservicemembers who are willing to fight and die for our freedom. i'm going to fight for their freedom to be who they are, to fight for an america where we all belong. we should not be at war with each other. we all belong. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from new mexico yields become. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mr. jacobs: how much time do i have left? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. jacobs: i -- >> my colleague from south carolina is using horrible slurs to talk about them when many people have received gender affirming care. boob jobs is affirming care, botox is gender affirming care. let me be clear i think everyone should have access to the gender affirming care they need and we should respect everybody in this country and i yield back. you are absolutely ridiculous. the chair: the house will be in order. the gentlelady and the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina. the house will be in order. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentlewoman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment -- >> a recorded vote is requested. >> mr. chairman -- the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does gentlelady seek recognition? >> i request her words be taken down. the chair: the gentlelady was not recognized for dwit. the house will be in order. no one is recognized. the chair is prepared to move on and recognize the next amendment. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i would like to address the no flag. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 119-255 offered by mr. mills of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. mills, and a member oppose each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mills: this amendment passed the house last year would ensure base commanders follow federal law by ensuring only approved flags be flown on military installations. the patriotic americans understand that the american flag is to be revered.

anyone who has served keep old glory flying. it is truly sacred this symbolic altar of the nation. and troops absolute her raising and lowering. forces carry her wearing proudly on their sleeves and serves as a final blanket after they come home. the 2024 ndaa rightly addressed this issue by codifying approved flags that uphold the honor our military is built on. a caveat built in the list gives commanders to fly any flag they deem appropriate and since president trump and secretary hegseth have taken the woke infiltration of our military continues to be exposed. the embarrassment of these flags are hard to grasp. drag shows on ships and military installations, basic security

training teaching guards that pro-life bumper stickers are terrorism and gender transition and hormone treatment were nontrainable. even still there are senior officials and officers that refuse to mount the portraits of president trump and secretary hegseth on their chain of command due to insubordination. these individuals will not last long in our armed forces. but i ask you, do you think commanders that approve and even encourage all of this would exist or hesitate before dealing a transflag appropriate in the month of june? of course not. and it would be their idea in the first place. i want to emphasize the power of symbolism. symbols serve representation of our values, priorities and our identity. when a company completes a

grueling and it symbolizes home and it may feel like a splint. when a platoon re-enters the wire, it symbolizes safety. imagine what our enemies think if we allow flags flown contrary to the principles of america. i promise as much as this stands as the military standard it is a deterrant. vote yes on this important measures and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: i rise in opposition to this amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i do not understand why my colleagues across the aisle are so triggered, triggered by a piece of cloth yet here we are for the

third year in a row voting to been the pride flag from bases at the department of defense. nearly half of the house republicans f.y.2026 bills have bans on the pride flag. the prietd flag did not make me gay and will not make d.o.d. employees gay either. what it does do, however, is send an important signal to lgbtq+ people that they belong. our department of defense, what does it exist for but to defend america, to defend all americans, to defend the dignity, rights and freedom of all americans. and so, what the flag does do is send an important signal that

lgbtq+ people. did displaying pride flags is a way to show they are committed to affirming an inclusive agreement or a way to celebrate their own identity. it does not indicate to exclude anybody else for what they may believe in. at a time when the lgbtq+ community is under attack displaying a pride flag is important and offensive that republicans are seeking to ban this flag at d.o.d. given one of the earliest pride flag was flown by a former officer gilbert baker. i think they view amendments like this dictating to federal employees and groups what flags they can have at their work stations is ridiculous and extreme overreach. we should be strengthening our

military readiness not censuring the lgbtq+ community. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mills: how much time do i have remaining? mr. mills: the only thing that was said by our friend across the road is incluesivity and what is more inclusive than the american flag the flag we honor as american patriots. the one thing we know is pride flag is not incluesivity but division. first time since the previous administration we hit our recruitment numbers something you can't say when it comes to the last administration's efforts. what i look at this, 1777 flag act and stand for something that unifies us and not divide us and get back to merit objecting ray shy and not division.

this is a patriotic stance. the very flag that stands behind you and the same one that sits over presidents over our fallen soldiers and military installation, that's not division, that's not recognition of others' sexual preferences but acknowledgement of what we fight for day in and day out. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: i would say in response to the gentleman the pride flag doesn't replace the american flag it is flown certain times and it is a portion of our military. and yes i agree the military flag is inclusive and show we can include a disparaged minority. i offer one minute to the the

gentlewoman from oregon. ms. dexter: i rise in opposition to this cruel and callous amendment. there are 20 days until the government shuts down, eight legislative days. and what are republicans focused on? flags, pride flags. republicans are spending valuable floor time, time that could be used by the government to lower costs for -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. mills: identify the fact that that flag violates house rules by flying any other flag other than the american flag. the chair: the house policy prohibits flag waving on the floor. ms. dexter: i'm not waving it. ms. dexter: we are wasting

valuable time that could be used to fund the government or lower costs for working families. trying to ban the display pride flags in my workplace or common area at the department of defense. this this attack, villainizing our lgbtq i population is the same authoritarian playbook used throughout history. he's using this to divide and distract us from the fact that his failure to meaningfully improve the lives of the people he was elected to serve. we see this for what it is and refuse to let them win. we will not erase the lgbtq ia community. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mills: i want to be very clear in this. they on the other side hay may they we can out-pronoun our

enemies and that'll keep them at bay. that's not what makes us strong, the nag we wear, the training we have and he meriting oncy which should always exist. i will con to fight for every member of the armed services an every single person to know that is the american flag which will fly high and fraud and we will defend her against all enemies foreign and domestic. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: i have one minute remaining in? thank you. let me just say that i don't understand why the other side believes that lgbtq people are such a threat to recognize their service in the military, to acknowledge, to allow a flag to be displayed at a work station. or to be flown during pride month in certain areas. we are a country of inclusion. we are a country of -- the home

of the -- land of the free, home of the brave. and that should include all of us. there's no reason why, to think that the fact that we had a policy of inclusion, that we had pride flags at the department of defense, that that was the reason why we were falling short of our recruitment goals. there was something else going on there. this is all crazy talk. and that's why i think more and more americans think it's the republican party that has gone too far with its very extreme views about lgbtq i plus people in defense. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. all time for debate on this issue has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. takano: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be

postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 19 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentlelady from georgia seek recognition? ms. greene: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from ohio and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20, printed in part a of house report 119-255, offered by ms. greene of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentlelady from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from georgia, ms. greene. ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of my friend and colleague, congressman warren davidson from ohio, who is a proud army ranger. and i am offering his amendment

to prohibit the department of war from researching or procuring lab-grown meat. this amendment prohibits the department of war funding from being used on the research, production, advancement, or enhancement of cell cultured meat which is fake meat. it's not even real meat. over the years kyler mat activists have tried to push experimental food alternatives on the american public. the latest product they are peddling to us is cell-cultured fake meat. what's worse is they have been trying to push this experimental product on our u.s. service members like they are lab rats. all in an attempt to put america's ranchers and farmers out of business. our great men and women in our military are not lab rats, mr. speaker. in 2024, the defense department announced up to $500 million in grant funding for the

development of lab-grown meat products. in case anyone at home is wondering if this is real, yes. it was real and it happened. last year, small farms and mom and pop operations across the country raised their voices in jut rage against this ill-considered initiative. we won and got the d.o.d. to back off on trying to put our farmers out of business while trying to feed our soldiers fake, poisonous garbage. it is now time to codify this win into law and it's important to do so. with the fiscal year 2026 ndaa. that's why this amendment is so important. a product this experimental has many unresolved safety and environmental considers. these products are not yet approve for retail sale in grocery stores. it should not be tested on our brave service members. who put their lives at stake for this country. i urge the transportation of

this amendment and mr. speaker, i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to amendment 20 which would place a blanket, statutory ban on any d.o.d. research, development, eprocurement or promotion when it comes to cultivated cell-based meat. let's be clear. this isn't about whether the pentagon going to serve cultivated meat tomorrow. it's about whether we let our military continue doing what it has always done best, and that's preparing for the future. readiness has always been

america's edge. our military leads the world because we don't close doors, we open them. we evaluate every tool, every technology, every option, that might keep our service members better supplied and better prepared for future missions. this amendment does just the opposite. it ties our hands. it says, don't even consider it. meanwhile, china has already made cultivated meat a national priority and its five-year plan. scaling up production. while countries like singapore, israel, australia, and the u.k. are moving forward as well. cultivated meat helps deliver cheaper, scalable protein solutions worldwide, do we really want china setting the standards, dominating the intellectual property, and

reaping the jobs this burgeoning industry creates? i have spoken directly with senior d.o.d. officials who have shared with me the potential benefits cultivated meat could bring to readiness. from operating in harsh bases, to sustaining missions where supply lines are contested or disrupted. keeping the option open for d.o.d. research and evaluation ensures we remain competitive and ensures u.s. leadership in the broader protein biotech space that underpins global supply chains. voting no on this amendment preserves the military's discretion, let me say this again. preserves the military's discretion to explore a technology that cowl strengthen

readiness, create u.s. jobs, and help maintain our competitive edge. this ban doesn't save money. it doesn't improve readiness. all it does is close off technology others are racing to develop while handing china a free lane and a strategic biotech domain. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, to ensure d.o.d. can test, validate, or reject technology on the merit, not because of shortsighted, anti-science ideology. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves her time. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, it's so interesting to reason to -- interesting to listen to my democrat colleague across the aisle talk about china and how china made cultivated meat a national prity and so we should too.

that's pretty shocking. don't forget that the covid virus was made in wuhan, china. released upon the world. and look at the consequences from that. never forget it was the democrats that were all about forcing poisonous vaccine into people's body against their will. and we saw the devastating impacts on that on many military members. myocarditis, nerve condition, heart pbs, heart attacks, many reported issue, not just on the military but the american people. as a matter of fact there's vaccine injuries and death that was not been investigated to this day. but now democrats want to continue to force our great men and women in the military to eat fake lab-grown meat? that's repulsive and disgusting. i can tell you right now, myself along with my republican colleagues want to feed our great men and women in the military ribeyes and those that are grown right here on good old

u.s.a. farms. i think our men and women in the military, in order to quote my colleague across the aisle, to be -- to have readiness, to be ready and prepared for war, they need to be as healthy and fit as possible. and i would argue that lab-grown, disgusting fake meat is not going to make them ready. not going to make them healthy. not going to make them fit. and not going to make them the best possible shape they can be in to go to war. god forbid they go to war. i don't want to see them go to war either. you know, they talk about this fake meat being a tool. or an option. to keep them better supplied. i think it's repulsive. i think it's an insult. and i can't imagine anyone signing up for the military saying, i can't wait to eat a big old portion of nasty, lab-grown fake meat. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves this gentlelady from california is recognized.

for information purposes you have one and a half minutes remaining. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. speaker. i will just say that yes, i want to be competitive with china's military. and their readiness. first and foremost. second, our d.o.d. officials are talking about the future. they're not talking about today. they're talking about preparedness for the future. if you want a ryaneye steak, cultivated meats can create that and i assure you it will be delicious. and they will love it. they will not know the difference. our military will not know the difference. look. if we take this even out of the military, this is about investing in a new industry and our country that both democrats and republicans support because it is an opportunity for us to move and lead this as opposed to having china or singapore or

israel or australia already leading in this. we want to be competitive in the global marketplace. we want our military to be ready. this is about the future. this is about research. this is about science saying it's either good or it's bad. but to move forward with the research so that we know what our options are for the future, for our military, who might be deployed in an offshore island somewhere where there's no access to food whatsoever. except for what they can develop. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back this. gentlelady from georgia is recognized for her one minute remaining. ms. greene: my democrat colleague across the aisle just said it's about the science. boy, where have we heard that one before. i think everyone in the country remembers the past few years of forced mandated covid vaccines. when it becomes about the

science and not about feeding our men and women in the military, good, cultivated real meat, then it's a serious problem. being competitive with china, according to the democrats, means being just like china, a communist country that america should never be like. be like at all. mr. speaker, i'll finish this. when democrats are saying that they won't know the difference when they're being fed fake meat versus real meat and they'll love it, i think that's the most terrify thing we can hear. mr. speaker, i urge the adoption of this amendment and i yield. the chair: the gentlelady from the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from georgia. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. brownley: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the amendment offered by the gentlelady from georgia will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 119-255 offered by mr. austin scott of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from gee, mr. scott, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: first i want to thank my friend mr. panetta for being a sponsor. it is bipartisan. my amendment authorizes the secretary of defense to carry a security on the baltic security initiative to expand with

estonia, latvia and leught wayne yeah. it has been in existence since fiscal year 2020. i yield one minute to my friend, mr. carbajal. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. carbajal: i rise to speak in support of this to authorize the baltic security initiative. this comes up at a crucial time. last week, the administration announced the u.s. would be pulling out of security assistance programs from europe. i had privilege of traveling to the battlics. it is not a question of if when russia will invade but a matter of when. now is to stand firm in support of these allied nations against

what kind of support. cutting off the b.s.i. is a massive gift to putin. this is in the interest of the niter. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. mr. scott: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. mr. turner: i want to thank representative scott for offering this amendment. this is incredibly important to secure the funding for the baltic security initiative. it has assisted the states of estonia, latvia and lithuania and they have contributed well above the benchmark and committed to reach the 5% g.d.p. of defense spending in the upcoming years are vulnerable nato allies and debating this

amendment at a time when russian bombs have fallen upon poland. it is important to secure this funding. the baltic states have contributed $10 for every u.s. dollar that has gone into this baltic security initiative. this is the u.s. portion of funding for training that has been the u.s. participation as part of baltic exercises in the area that has ensured and been a part of deterrence to say to russia, we will be there. we are part of the nato alliance and ensuring that the baltics will be secured and it is a statement against russian aggression and make a statement as they have been attacking, murderous attacks against ukraine and been trying to stand up and ensure as they look to expand and threaten poland, that

we will be there for them. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio's time has expired. mr. scott: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> speak in opposition to the amendment? the chair: does the gentleman wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? the chair: the gentleman is not recognized. mr. scott: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the chair: two minutes. secretary austin: of mr. scott: if the gentleman from missouri claims time in opposition he could then speak in favor of the amendment. >> i claim the time in opposition, though i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five

minutes. >> we must continue to stand with our baltic allies who stand on the front lines. estonia, latvia and lithuania are democratic partners. what we saw last night is a reminder of why this amendment is so critical. putin's aggression will not end with ukraine. his goal is to reassert control over nato allies including the baltic states. what is concerning the current administration has already announced plans to suspend key european security programs including the baltic security initiative and this is weakness that plays directly into putin's hands. turning our backs on natoial i don't think so will undermine

american credibility and would send a signal to putin. and it will heave a vac you'll for our enemies to exploit and we must strengthen our alliances and provide the tools our partners need to defend democracy and proud to co-sponsor this amendment and stand with our beltic allies with ukraine in the fight for freedom and democracy. i reserve. mr. scott: i now recognize mr. bacon, the gentleman from nebraska, for a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. bacon: i 100% support the baltic security initiative, all three countries are our best friends. they embrace free markets and the rule of law and no one has

embraced our values like these baltic states. they see russia's invasion of ukraine and know they could be next. it is clear to most that this is the case. he know who was sent to siberia to die. the baltic people know the harsh living under the russian thumb. it leads the way on defense spending and spends more than united states and spent more on ukraine. this amendment and there are some appointees are decoupling from europe. and we got to stand closer and do our article 1 power today. what happens if we withdraw from the baltics? and secondly, deterrence will be weakened and the war in europe will be more likely.

i support for this deterrence and stand by our allies and oppose a dictator tay is invading its neighbors. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: how much time is left? the chair: 30 seconds left. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. bell: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: this is an extremely important program. it was originally done in fiscal year 2020 under the trump administration, estonia, latvia and lithuania. if you look what happened last night of drones into poland it is more than necessary to make sure these countries have what they need to defend themselves against putin's aggression. i yield become. the chair: the gentleman from most is recognized.

mr. bell: i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from gee. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? ms. greene: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in part arch of house report 119-255 offered by ms. green of georgia. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from georgia. ms. greene: my amendment will --

my amendment prohibits the assistance to ukraine and the ndaa. this bill provides approximately $700 million in funding for the ukraine security assistance initiative over 2026 and 2027 for training, he equipment, supplies and services and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of ukraine. the administration has even raised strong objections against extending the ukraine security assistance initiative and authorizing additional funding for it, yet somehow the ndaa contains $700 million. the administration said and this comes from the letter from the office of the o.m.b., the administration strongly objects to sections 1223 and 1227 as these provisions extend the ukraine security assistance

initiative and authorize dirl funding. similarly, the administration objects to section is 1224 which requires deeper level planning. furthermore the administration strongly objects to section 1227 which usurps the administration's authority to dictate the terms of intelligence support to the ukrainian government. these four provisions do not advance the administration's objective to end the conflict in ukraine. the administration wants to end the conflict. ukraine is not a nato member nation we are not bound to provide them protection and need i remind everyone here we are $37 trillion in debt. we should not have to be sending more american tax dollars over to defend ukraine and the people of ukraine when ukrainians themselves are coming to our

country and getting murdered on trains, subway trains. iryna zarutska was brutally murdered by an american man as she was riding on a subway train and sending $700 million more to ukraine? american people would like it spent here and stop senseless insane murders. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr.smith: i rise to claim time in opposition. chairkt yad -- the gentleman is recognized mr.smith: this amendment would be object -- what has been clear for quite sometime putin will only stop his war when it is clear he cannot achieve his

objectives. president trump showed weakness literally rolling out the red carpet for putin has made the war worse. ever since trump blamed the war on dellens ky and ukraine putin has launched up the war. more recently sending drones over poland as well. weakness invites aggression. i know the proponent of this amendment says that many times but doesn't recognize when she sees it. you want to stop the war, back the 53-nation coalition that is supporting ukraine and making it clear to putin. that forces him. showing weakness and backing off extends the war. please defeat this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from georgia is

recognized. ms. greene: mr. speaker, the american people have war fatigue, not just war fatigue but absolutely fed up defending foreign nation' borders and here in america many cities are unsafe and senseless murders go on and on. this would reorient defense priorities to america only by prohibiting all assistance to ukraine. this lines up completely what trump's administration has asked for but some reason congress wants to keep funding the war and killing in ukraine. to did it, congress has provide -- not congress, u.s. taxpayers have provided over $175 billion in assistance to ukraine including direct military aid, funding further government and funding for their entire economy. mind you, this was while american businesses were shut

down during covid lockdown and our border was completely overrun. everyone needs to understand it wasn't putin killing americans but cartels killing americans and insane murderers on our own city streets. the american people are broke and the people in this room are responsible for that on both sides of the aisle. $37 trillion in $37 trillion in debt is no joke and i say that on behalf of my chairns generation and they're -- children's generation and they're all in their 20's. so i want to know, how deep are we going to continue digging the grave to bury our children and our grandchildren? i'll have no part of it. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair. sadly, the gentlelady has had a big part of it, just voted for a budget that would add $4 trillion to the debt. so i don't know that that's a particularly consistent position. but with that i will yield one

minute to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. bacon. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska, mr. bacon, is recognized for one minute. mr. bacon: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand 100% opposed to this amendment. i'm a reagan and eisenhower republican. a post-world war ii conservative. i believe in peace through strength, strong allies and we're the world's leader in defense of freedom. and we do not cower to bullies. russia invaded ukraine because it wants what they call little russians to be their vasyl state. ukrainians have suffered for decades and centuries under russia. formerly in ukraine it killed alone in the 1930's purposely. a ukrainian victory is in owsh national security interests. a thriving ukraine that is a democracy with free markets is our national security interest. if ukraine falls and you can assume mol dovinga, georgia and others will also fall. russia will also threaten the baltic countries. our military aid is necessary and cost-effective and if we lose here, it will cost a lot more. the russians are bombing cities

every single day. kid napping quds, murdering p.o.w.'s. we have to stand on the right side of this issue. we're on the side of freedom. it isn't conservative to appease putin or to have a lack of clarity of who is at fault for this war and embrace isolationism. with that i say stand with 2/3 of america and i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. does the gentleman reserve? mr. smith: i would inquire as to how much time is left. the chair: the gentleman has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. does the gentleman reserve? the chair: i reserve. the chair: -- mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: mr. speaker, i will push back on what my republican colleague just said. ukraine is not our national security interest. our national debt is a matter of national security for the united states of american citizens. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. the gentleman from washington is

recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would have our nation turn its back on the brave people of ukraine in their greatest hour of need. by cutting off all military assistance. as we stand here today, russia's illegal invasion, which is now in its fourth year, is intensifying to the highest levels of the war, despite all the oily, phony, happy talk coming from vladimir putin about seeking peace. on sunday russia launched the largest drone assault of the war with 805 drones, 13 cruise missiles, killing five people, and hitting the ukraine cabinet ministry. the tuesday before, a glide bomb killed 23 ukrainians. just last night russia and belarusian drones made 19 hits in sovereign polish air space, scrambling nato f-35's ands f-16's to fend off civilian casualties. it was ukraine's air force that

alerted their neighbors in poland to these blatantly illegal incursions, demonstrating ukraine's commitment to protecting not only their own population, but to the rest of europe. if this amendment were to pass, it would cripple not only ukraine's legal right to defend itself, but also our nato treaty allies. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: mr. speaker, i missed that part in my civic lessons and pretty much every single united states map i've ever seen where ukraine is the 51st state. in fact, it's not. and it's shameful that in the united states house of representatives, more united states members of congress fight for money and fight for the defense of a foreign country tthan they actually fight for their own people. i think members of congress should have to wear sponsors like nascar race cars have to wear for which country they represent and which industry

they are shelling for. mr. speaker, i urge the adoption of my amendment. no more money to ukraine. let's end the war. i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: no more money for ukraine will not end the war and this is absolutely in the interests of united states national security. with that, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. turner: mr. speaker, i posed this amendment. russia is murdering innocent civilians in ukraine. our support to ukraine opposes russia's murderous aggression. ukraine is fighting on the front lines against russian aggression. vladimir putin is threatening nato's eastern flank, including the balkans. russian drones have flown over poland. it is unbelievable that after

poland has been threatened, that today we are even debating this amendment. it has been warned that u.s. disengagement in ukraine would fracture nato unity, undermine deterrence, and invite broader conflict in europe. we should oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. you have 30 seconds remaining. mr. smith: thank you. i'm prepared to close. i agree with all the arguments that were made. i think the most crucial point here is the united states of america is the most economically powerful country in the history of the world. that has been the case since the end of world war ii. a large part of that is because of our efforts to work with the rest of the world to maintain peace and security. sadly, it just doesn't end at our borders. peace and security in the world is in the best interests of the american people. and we see the economic prosperity we have enjoyed because of it. that is what ukraine is about. and why we should continue to support them. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. smith: mr. chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentlelady from georgia seek recognition? ms. greene: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part a of house report 119-255 offered by ms. greene of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentlelady from georgia, ms. greene, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentlelady from georgia. gre ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment strikes funding for overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid programs. my amendment strikes $115 million in foreign aid funding to the overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid programs of the department of defense. i'm sorry, the war department. you see, the united states government is not a charity. and the american people are some of the most generous people in the world. all by themselves. without the government taking their hard-earned tax dollars and sending it to wherever they want. you see, this account funds three different programs. humanitarian assistance helps nations with disaster preparedness, public health support, basic infrastructure support. humanitarian mine action program provides assistance to nations to help them safely eliminate unexploded mines. disaster relief support supports

disaster relief in foreign countries. 2023 and 2024, the department provided support for responses in haiti, turkiye, northern syria, philippines, libya and gaza. and while we're compassionate to people around the world suffering from natural disaster, and many other issues, think of our own national disasters and problems that we face here in our own homeland. hurricane helene, hurricane milton, the lahaina wildfires, the l.a. wildfires, the texas flooding, the opioid epidemic, and in northwest georgia, the drinking water is also polluted with forever chemicals. these are the issues that the american people care about. these are the issues that the american people pay their taxes for. and $115 million shouldn't be sent to go sit in an account somewhere ready to go pay money off to every foreign country and every foreign country's need. we're $37 trillion in debt and i cannot believe that we can't cut

spending here in this body that has created that debt. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to claim the time np tosition. t-- the time in opposition. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: basically what this amendment says, as the gentlelady was saying, we're a compassionate nation, she's saying she wishes we weren't. basically. we need to stop being a compassionate nation. and this is $115 million. i will remind everybody that the budget bill that the gentlelady and the sponsor of this amendment voted for added $4 trillion to the debt. why don't we start there? this is a basic argument here. why does the u.s. engage in foreign aid? there's four real arguments to that. number one, economics. we, again, are the most economically powerful nation in the world, we have the largest economy, we've benefited the most. if we can help other chris generate economies, we have -- countries generate economy, we have access to those markets.

they will buy our stuff, it grows our economy. it's worked spectacularly well for 80 years. number two, disease and health. sadly, those things don't know boarders -- borders. ebola, a variety of different other diseases can spread and come back here. so if we work with the rest of the world to prevent it before it comes here, that is to our benefit. third is a matter of national security and safety. 9/11 happened because things were going wrong in other parts of the world and they came here. and it absolutely impacted people in the united states of america. the idea that this has no impact on our citizens doesn't matter, just fails to recognize it is not the 19th century anymore. it is a globally connected world that impacts us. and the last argument i would make, make america great again. we're supposed to be the most compassionate nation. we run around the world telling everybody how great we are. how much we're better than everybody else in the world. and this amendment basically says, screw you, we don't care. we should be a great nation.

we should be willing to set aside $115 million in a $14 trillion economy to help other parts of the world that are less fortunate than us. if we want to make that claim, then we ought to live up to it, to at least this tiny, tiny little degree. this is a heartless, uncompassionate amendment. please defeat it. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: mr. speaker, we're $37 trillion in debt. fiscal year 2024 was the first year that the u.s. spent more on interest payments than on national defense. spending on interest was more than all the money spent on veterans, education and transportation combined. that's for america, not the rest of the world. interest costs will keep rising, crowding out other priorities. and not only burden future generations, but cripple them.

300 americans die every single day from drug overdoses. and in 2024, 17.6 veterans committed suicide every single day. and there were over 30,000 homeless veterans. these are american problems. these are the issues we should be spending americans' hard-earned tax dollars on instead of shoving them off and just saying, we can't wait to give american money to the rest of the world for whatever they need. but yet we kick americans right in the face and say, no, no money for you. according to the department of education, 85% of black students lack proficiency in mathematics and reading skills. 40% of high schools in baltimore did not have a single student score proficiently in math in 2023. not a single student. but we got to send another $115 million for somebody else's

flood or problem or issue because, you know, god forbid the government not jump in and send money to foreign countries. this is a shame. and this is hurting america. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. jacobs. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. jacobs: thank you. the overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid account empowers the u.s. to be a global first responder, advancing our humanitarian goals and strategic interests at the same time. this fund makes humanitarian responses possible that otherwise wouldn't be. it enables the quick delivery of food, water, shelter, medical supplies and transportation during natural disasters or humanitarian crises in areas that are too hard for n.g.o.'s and other u.s. agencies reach to reach -- to reach as quickly. this also removes dangerous land

mines. something i know the amendment's sponsor has been vocal about in the past. and this fund helps showcase the u.s. military in a positive light. leading with our values and capabilities while strengthening partnerships and alliances. for example, just a few years ago there was critical humanitarian assistance to afghan visa applicants after the collapse of the afghan government. compared to the rest of the defense budget, the budget is modest, but its impact is huge. it yields massive returns in lives saved, crises stabilize and partnerships strengthened. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: reserve.h: the chair: the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: $115 million is a lot of money, especially when our interest is bigger than our own military budget. we have a serious crisis right now and it's our national debt. and the american people have been through unbelievable cr

crises, hurricanes have been through wildfires, every kind of national disaster you can image -- natural disaster you can imagine, but also disasters cause bide our own government. yet the people in this room are tone deaf. absolutely tone deaf. if it were up to my democrat colleagues, they would just keep digging the hole of debt. and sending all of the hard-earned money here in america overseas for every single issue there is. i'll reiterate, americans donate more money to worldwide charities than any other country on earth. and so if americans want to be able to check a box on their i.r.s. tax return that says send here's some extra money i want to send over for humanitarian aid, let them do t but they shouldn't be forced to do it at gun point. this body should not force them to do that. mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.

the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i yield myself the balanced of the time. there are two aspects, one is a budget debate. it's fascinating, we are having this passionate debate about $115 million. and we didn't apparently have that debate when we passed the budget resolution that the sponsor of this amendment voted for that added $4 trillion to the debt. those passionate speeches about the debt, deficit and impacts are real. how can you ignore that the vote for the $4 trillion debt and be passionate about $115 million. it is not true we do nothing for the american people. it's a somewhere around $6.5 trillion budget. 1 $$115 million. let's not act like we are not funding those other priorities. we are. the second piece is, does this benefit the united states of america to spend this money to help the rest of the world deal with disasters? as i explained earlier it 100%

does. would it make sense for us to do as the gentlelady has suggested we are doing to fund every single crisis all around the world? no. it wouldn't. and we don't. we spend $115 million to try to help the rest of the world with public health disasters and natural disasters. which does benefit us. so all of the arguments about the debt and deficit, please don't take those seriously from a group of people who just voted for increasing the debt by $4 trillion. this is $115 million that is absolutely in the best interest of the united states of america. it will help us. please defeat this amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: request a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does gentlelady from georgia seek recognition? ms. greene: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in part a of house report number 119-255. offered by ms. greene of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 6782, the gentlelady from georgia, ms. greene, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from georgia. ms. greene: than you, mr. speaker. my amendment strikes the funding for taiwan security cooperation initiative. this amendment would strike $1 billion in military assistance to taiwan. this funding will be used to provide a wide variety of as assistance including planes, drones, missile defense, munitions, and more. however, this is an increase of

$700 million from the fiscal year 25 ndaa, which authorized only 300 million. this is quite a jump in funding. the entire defense budget of taiwan is less than $20 billion. we have given taiwan over $2 billion in funding and munitions over the last two years. increasing foreign aid to taiwan while -- will only increase their reliance on the u.s. and increasing funding by $700 million to one billion when our own interests on our debt is over entire military budget is america last. the united states is $37 trillion in debt. and in fiscal year 24, the government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in. and the interest alone on our debt has exceeded $1 trillion. we can't afford to fund other countries' militaries and secure

other countries' borders. before we start worrying about taiwan's borders or ukraine's borders, we should focus on deporting every single illegal alien who invaded our borders, broke our laws, raped our women, and children, and murdered our people. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. tokuda: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady game claim -- ms. tokuda: i claim my time in opposition. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment to striking funding for the taiwan security cooperation initiative. coming from hawaii on the frontlines of the indo-pacific i know firsthand how critically important it is to keep our ties in this region strong. the taiwan security cooperation initiative is not just another line item. it is a vital provision that enables taiwan to maintain its

self-defense capabilities and sends a clear message to taipei and beijing that the united states is serious about teeter -- deterrence. it keeps us out of the war that the sponsor is concerned about. cutting this finding would only invite beijing to push harder. we say we want to be tough on china yet here we are ente entertaining where to cut one of the clearest demonstrations of our strength and resolve. the fact that this amendment has even been made in order undermines us. just giving this amendment air time sows the seeds of doubt and further emboldens beijing. this is not by any means a serious amendment. in this very same bill bill that we are debating we are considering bipartisan provision that is strengthen our defense relations with taiwan, expanding d.o.d.'s annual readiness assessments, even republican-lead amendmentses,'ll bolster the energy security. these are the kinds of amendments that are aligned with the un united states' interests. these are the kinds of amendments that foster

deterrence. not instigate and facilitate chinese propaganda as this one would. because when we question our support for taiwan, outright, as this amendment does, onlookers will wonder, what else are we willing to walk back on? who else will we abandon on the line? that is not the message we should be sending. this amendment is nothing more than a political stunt that should never have seen the light of day. beijing is watching, my friends, passing this amendment is a win for china. do not be fooled. i yield back my time. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve or yield back? ms. tokuda: reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. mitts greene: thank you, mr. speaker. i think -- ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. i think everyone has to be honest here and admit to the fact that our united states military has a strong presence in the indo-pacific. the american -- the united states is not backing down to china. however, we shouldn't have to fund taiwan's security and

military at $1 billion. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: thank you, mr. chair. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. mccormick. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. mccormick: colleagues, i rise today in strong opposition to ms. greene's amendment to eliminate funding for taiwan security cooperative niche ive. i know my colleague is trying to save money and put america first, i respect that. but the funding support to taiwan requested by the trump administration has consequences that would do exactly the opposite what i believe the gentlelady is trying to achieve. peace through strength saves money. saves lives. and puts america interest first. president trump recognized that which is why he requested congress double the funding for this program to preserve peace

in a critically important region. trade in the indo-pacific accounts for about 40% of the world's g.d.p. 21% of the global trade passes through the taiwan straits including 20% of the world's container fleet. the semiconductor manufacturing company produces 90% of the world's a.i. chips crucial to the american economy. a war in this region would be a global catastrophe. our taiwanese allies are already waiting overdue delivery of american military supplies. the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes remaining. ms. tokuda: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from georgia for an additional 30 seconds. mr. mccormick: they are waiting supplies they have paid for. and this amendment sends the wrong signal at the worst time. withdrawal support would defeat trump's initiatives, save us money, save us ultimate deficit

spending. in defense of a region we need to critically supply. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii reserves. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: mr. speaker, not only have i introduced amendments to defund ukraine, defund $115 million in humanitarian askis cystance for foreign country, defund $1 billion from taiwan, i have also introduced amendments to defund money to israel, syria, iraq, and the border security for jordan, lebanon, egypt, and pakistan. those amendments were not made in order. didn't get to debate those today. the reason why i introduced those amendments is because i believe our funding for our united states military should be for our country only. because it's the defense of our country only that should matter. that's what matters to the american people. they are absolutely fed up. every single one of my

colleagues can go back home to their districts and face their constituents. their constituents will tell them we are sick of the foreign wars. we are sick of the foreign aid. that's the matter of fact. i'll tell you why. it's because the american dream has become unattainable today. the media -- median age of first time home buyers is 38 compared to 29 in the 1980's. cost of college tuition has increased by about 130% in the past two decades. graduates leave with massive amounts of debt and are unable to find jobs. the youth unemployment rate is at 10.8%. the average health insurance premium for a family has risen by 22% since 2018. and 47% since 2013. this america last congress, and this is every single congress, and as we debate these bills, it's always about sending more money to more foreign countries

for their foreign causes. because every foreign country has a plea and request and a reason to ask america to write them checks. so, mr. speaker, i yield -- i don't yield. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia reserves. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: madam chair, i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, chair rogers. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. in recent years china has increased the size, scope, and complexity of its drills around taiwan. as admiral has said, these are not exercises, theory hersals for a forced reunification. president trump understands that. supporting taiwan's self-defense now is the surest way to deter c.c.p. aggression.

i agree. that's why the president and the pentagon requested $1 billion for the taiwan security cooperation initiative in f.y. 26. this bill fully funds president trump's budget request to do otherwise would put peace and security in taiwan at risk. therefore i oppose this amendment. urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. and the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: thank you, madam speaker. the issue here is that it's always about enrough country, and it's always america last. we are $37 trillion in debt, and i can tell you right now there is become ago big difference between -- becoming a big difference between how young americans feel versus older americans feel. and this body is absolute and this body is absolutely tone deaf when it comes to spending priorities. when young americans today are hopeless for the future, don't

believe that they'll be able to afford to buy a home, can't afford the cost of living, but yet here in congress the debate goes on and on about how much more money we should send to more foreign countries around the world, the united states congress is absolutely losing the support of the american people and that goes for both political parties. i urge the support of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: thank you, madam speaker. you've heard strong voices from both sides of the aisle that this is a bad, reckless, dangerous amendment. every dollar and day we spend supporting taiwan is another day we keep our service members, our children and our grandchildren out of war. this is about putting americans first. it's a very simple decision, my colleagues, vote no. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields -- the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from

georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from georgia -- ms. greene: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from georgia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in part a of house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? derm derm i have an amendment --

mr. mccormick: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 25 offered by mr. mccormick of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from georgia, mr. mccormick, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. mccormick: thank you, madam chair. i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 3838. mr. chair, i rise and offer my amendment, number 25, to h.r. 3838, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2026. my amendment expands on language already in law in this bill and in the senate ndaa to combat the indirect censorship of conservative news outlets in the department of war. section 1555 of the fiscal year 2024 ndaa required that the d.o.d. when contracting with organizations that place military recruitment

advertisements, must certify that an organization does not place advertisements based on political bias or the determination that a media outlet spreads so-called misinformation. the language is necessary because the d.o.d. or now the department of war has contracted with organizations such as newsguard and the global disinformation index. according to the media research center, the average newsguard score for the left and lean left outlets was a green shield rating of 91 of 100. while the average rating for the right and lean-right outlets was a low of 66 of 100. a global disinformation index reports on the online news list the 10 riskiest online news outlets as the "new york post," the federalist, the blaze, daily wire, newsmax, one american network, the american spectator, the american conservative, reason magazine and real clear

politics. all conservative. left-leaning sites like npr.org, newyorktimes.com and huffingtonpost.com were among the 10 lowest risk online news sites. we should not be excluding large swaths of the americans simply because they watch or read conservative news. especially when considering that recruiting is hard enough without excluding this demographic. my amendment adds language to clarify that the standards on what exact bias looks like, as well as by striking the one-year sunset, including in subsection c. this language is already in the senate ndaa. and i thank senator tuberville for his leadership in pushing this forward. and i ask for my colleague' support on amendment -- colleagues' support on amendment number 25. thank you and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: thank you. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. we have dealt with this issue on a number of levels. it's already in the underlying bill. this expands to any organization that is deemed to be engaging in fact checking. but basically what this amendment has done and it is in law from last year, now we're making it permanent and expanding it, is basically if you are an organization that checks for factual accuracy, we don't want to do business with you. which is just a remarkable statement. in terms of how we approach this. i think we should want people to check facts. just, for example, it's not the department of war. it's the department of defense. it's in statute, it's the law. the president can say whatever he wants to say, but the law still says it is the department of defense. so if he wants to put into the law that he's going to change that, that's fine.

but it is factually inaccurate to say that it is the department of war. and, yes, the statistics seem to show that right-wing news agencies score lower on factual accuracy. there are two reasons possible for why that happens. one is the bias that the gentleman, the maker of the amendment, says. the other is that they are more likely to be factually inaccurate. which seems to be the more likely outcome. and i also want to make clear, we're not excluding anything. in fact, this amendment is what excludes things. if you are an organization that checks facts, we are going to exclude you from who we're going to do business with. i mean, i would just let out a heavy sigh at this moment, about how do you engage in that sort of conversation? if you want to take a look at this and say, the way you are checking for factual accuracy, we think it's wrong. we don't think you're being

fair. ok. fine. but no. we're just going to say, don't look, don't check, don't think about it. it's your truth. we're going to go -- i guess the left-wing version of this is the your truth is as much truth as anybody else's and the right-wing version of this is, we're going with alternative facts. i still want to live in the factual universe. and if you join me in that cause, let's defeat this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. mccormick: i find it rather distracting that my peer on the other side of the aisle thinks that one person controls the truth and that by and large he thinks that conservative media is lying and that liberal media is telling the truth. the fact of the matter is during the biden administration, when all this came to be, where we started fact checking, recruiting went down miserably.

we had a recruiting problem we've never seen in america since the vietnam war. we had a problem getting the army up to par. the only service that made their recruiting goals was the united states marine corps. i'd like to say it's because they're amazing commercials, but i'm sure it's far more than that. what we know is they have a job to do. you're hurting the recruitment efforts by taking out a demographic based on your idea of what's accurate and truthful rather than doing your job of bringing people into the military to make sure that we are sustaining a lethal force moving forward. that is our goal and that is as american as you get and it's not a partisan issue. trying to figure out which news agency should be advertised on based on your idea of what the truth is is really a side note argument that should be kept in this room, not on the political front in front of the future soldiers, marines and sailors and airmen that we need to

sustain our force. and i would say since we instituted this bill last year, ge guess what, maybe it's because we have a new president or maybe it's because we can now advertise to the people who are most likely to join our armed services. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. just a couple of quick points. first of all, i am not remotely saying that the sleft right and the right is wrong or anything like that. this amendment says we're not even going to examine the question. that's the problem i have. i fully admit the left is wrong frequently. i think we ought to factually check that. here we're saying, don't factually check that. and while we're on the subject of facts. covid played a little bit of a role in our recruitment problem. and i don't think anyone who is being fair about it would dispute that. but here we hear, oh, no, it wasn't covid, it was the fact that where we advertised, we didn't place it here. come on.

covid is what impacted our recruitment. which is why i think we should allow people to check facts. not that the left is always right. they're frequently not. believe me. i live those arguments back home in my district and i argue the other side of it. i just think we should at least try and figure it out. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. cisneros. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. cisneros: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment. i want to thank the gentleman for recognizing me right now. this highly partisan amendment would prohibit d.o.d. from contracting with entities that perform fact-check for recruitment purposes. explain to me how we are enhancing national security, deterring our adversaries and, most importantly, increasing service member quality of life needs, by going after a contract. in my previous role, i oversaw recruiting for the military services and never did one of them ever come to me stating they can't recruit because of this tool.

as the gentleman said, it had to deal with covid and it had to deal with because the services weren't putting money into their recruiting budgets. that's why recruiting went down. it's ald eameds like that -- it's amendments like this that not only put our national security at risk but makes this bipartisan process crumble before us on the house. you know who loves to feed disinformation through nonfact-checking sites? russia. iran. the people's republic of china. and other adversaries. republican leadership has continued to fail the american people by making this bipartisan bill a right-wing culture war process. when we should be debating the administration deploying active duty service members on u.s. citizens and our cities, our managing of the -- we're dealing with this nonsense. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from washington

reserves. mr. smith: may i inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides? what's that? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. smith: 30. i thought you said three for one second. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has one minute. mr. smith: i can close. i believe the gentleman from georgia has the right to close. no. all right. then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close. myth smith my bad. i -- mr. smith: my bad. i reserve. the chair: the claire recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. mccormick: i love the fact that the other side just said that it's factual that covid is the reason we couldn't recruit. i remember when i came into congress and we had the president of the united states say we can take off masks, the pandemic's over, for the first two years of my service here in congress, the pandemic was over and yet we could not recruit. so therefore i want to point out that the gentleman literally put misinformation in his argument which proves my point. should i sensor him -- censor

him from being able to present his case right here in front of the american people? no, i would say not. he's allowed to give us misinformation like he just did. covid was over, we couldn't recruit and we changed the law, we changed the president and we have mass recruiting efforts being reinforced. it was a down right misinformation, just to say that covid didn't allow us to recruit. we've seen that in recent history. pandemic's been over for over two years now. it didn't change until we had a new president, new laws, that was misinformation. to my point, you interpret your misinformation, i interpret mine. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself the remainder of my time. actually, you make my point. you just fact-checked me. good for you. i disagree, which i'll get to in a second. but you fact-checked me. what your amendment does is it doesn't allow that. it just allows it to hang out there. you can't fact check it. recruitment picked up a year before trump came back in office. we all know this.

recruitment's improved for a long time. there was a bit of a lag, yes, until 2022, 2023, they caught up with the lag, are he kreut iment -- recruitment improved for a year before trump showed up in office, now it continues to be well. which i would say argues that it was in fact covid that drove that but i would love to have that discussion. i would love to have people check facts and have a debate. not cut off all fact-checking. please oppose this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered offered by the gentleman from georgia, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does -- mr. smith: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in part a of house report 119-2556789 for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. biggs: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29, printed in part a of house report number 119-255. offered by mr. biggs of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: thank you, madam speaker. our brave service men and women stand ready to defend this nation against any threat. but they cannot prepare for tomorrow's bat unless today's training grounds are shackled by outdated, overreaching regulation. the endangered species act once intended as a shield for vulnerable wildlife has morphed into a weapon yielded by radical activists and unelected bureaucrats that cripple our

military's readiness and drain millions from our defense budget. consider this, the war department manages nearly 27 million acres of land, waters, and airspace which are vital for testing cutting-edge technologies, honing combat skills, and ensuring our forces remain the world's finest. yet as many as 550 threatened or endangered species call these areas home which triggers endless e.s.a. restrictions that hamstring operations. in arizona, for example, the so norrian tiger salamander designated critical wetteland habitat requires strict protection measures that. means environmental reviews, limits on land use, construction, and all those delay vital infrastructure prospects and constrain training exercises during proceeding seasons. on top of that, fort huachuca must carry out ongoing monitoring, habitat control, habitat management under e.s.a. guidelines which impose onerous

constraits on our ability to train and be ready for our warriors. the same could be said about barium goldwater range also in arizona. it's not just arizona this happens to guam as well, for instance. guam's military installations basic stream e.s.a. related challenges from the invasive brown tree snake, which has devastated native wildlife and forced costly elaborate mitigation programs. on guam the military must throw snake prop fencing, train detection dogs to prevent incursions on military equipment and cargo significantly complicating logistics, readiness, and training activities. this forces the department of war to divert funds to wildlife management while mission critical activities grind to a halt. activist groups exploit e.s.a. through relentless litigation and red tape, imposing critical habit designations that do precious little to recover species but everything to block

land use and weaken our def defenses. they are a direct assault on our national security. after more than 50 years since its enactment in 1973, the track record is abysmal. fewer than 2% of listed species have been delisted. that isn't a success story, that's proof of a flawed perpetual regulatory machine that prioritizes special interest agendas over sound science and our soldiers' needs. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. does the gentlewoman seek recognition? ms. elfreth: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: is recognized for five minutes. ms. elfreth: thank you, madam chair. house natural resource democrats strongly oppose the biggs amendment number 29 which seeks to weaken the department of defense's work to conserve habitats crucial for military readiness and recovering

vulnerable species. it covers millions of acres, spanning a vast array of natural habitats, and providing that realistic backdrop for training and testing, healthy and well managed ecosystems play an essential role in maintaining the readiness of our military troops, an advantage unique to the u.s. military. they have even used e.s.a. wildlife to add complexity to training exercises, treating them as sensitive infrastructure to avoid as they would for schools or hospitals in another environment. this amendment not only erodes this long-standing work but doesn't reflect what the d.o.d. actually needs. they have not now or ever before requested this language. i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: thank you. let me reiterate. activist groups exploit the e.s.a. through relentless

litigation, red tape, curtailing and preventing full training and preparation by our -- preparation by our military. this amendment is nonnegotiable. it draws a clear line, military and national guard lands cannot be arbitrarily designated as critical habitat if the department of war deems them essential for national defense. i want to take the same argument on just the last -- used on the last bill when mr. cisneros of california said good grief, our adversaries don't care about this question of censorship. i'm telling you our adversaries don't care about this question of environmental -- the e.s.a. it exempts our personnel from e.s.a. prohibitions during defense related operations. that's what's happening. even if incidental harm occurs because in the heat of preparation for real world threats we cannot afford to pause for paperwork. e.s.a. was not meant to become a tool for endless lawsuits, environmental extremism, or

regulatory overreach that jeopardizes our ability to deter adversaries. madam speaker, now is the moment for bold action and clarity. national defense must eclipse this misguided go focus on the e.s.a. the e.s.a. -- e.s.a. has only delisted 2% of the hundreds and thousands of species listed. you cannot handcuff america's military. our enemies are not waiting for environmental impact studies. they are advancing relentlessly. we are choosing, we are choosing if you vote against this, we are choosing endangered species over war preparedness and defending this country. this amendment isn't essential, it is a lifeline for security. i urge my colleagues to stand up with our troops and pass the measure today. i yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized.

ms. elfreth: i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. buyer. the chair: is recognized. mr. beyer: as co-chair of the congressional endangered species caucus, i rise today in opposition to this amendment. i can't believe we are here again considering this unpopular amendment. it was brutally defeated last year. crushed the year before. both times with bipartisan support. the endangered species act has wide popularity. but our current biodiversity outlook has worsened. our scientific community screams from the rooftops that the biodiversity shrinking is a danger to humanity. in the meantime, our national defense is in way endangered by the endangered species. amazingly this is an attack on the endangered species act that the department of defense has never asked for. it's a solution in search of a problem. the department of defense already has a robust collaboration with the department of interior fish and

wildlife service. they do management plans everywhere. military plans are all designated when there are management plans in place for enlisted species. wholesale exempting the department of defense and many contractors from compliance with e.s.a. puts our nation as natural legacy at needless risk. to date, as the member from arizona's mentioned. 99% of the species listed under the e.s.a. have been saved from disappearing forever. making this one of the most successful pieces of legislation in america history. these protected species do not hinder national security. managing the species in balance with our mission is something the department of defense does very well. i urge my colleagues once more to reject this unwanted, unnecessary amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from from maryland is recognized. ms. elfreth: may i inquire how much time our side has left. pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes

to the gentlewoman from hawaii ms. tokuda. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tokuda: i rise in opposition to this amendment which would create broad exemptions from the endangered species act on military and national guard lands. in hawaii this would be akin to ache tag. the idea protecting endangered species and maintaining readiness is mutual loyally exclusive is simply false. across the country, including in hawaii, the department of defense has shown it can partner with conservation experts and local communities to safeguard fragile ecosystems while still meeting its mission. we should be doing more to hold the department of defense accountable and strengthening these efforts, not giving it a blank check to disregard environmental laws whenever it claims national security. in hawaii where trust on military land use is damaged, and lease negotiations are ongoing, accountability is not optional. a backdoor taking of our land is 100% unacceptable.

allowing this amendment to pass would set a dangerous precedent, undo decades of process, and erode community trust. protecting our environment and ensuring national defense are not opposing goals. they are shared responsibilities that we must uphold together. i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. ms. elfreth: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has no time remaining. ms. elfreth: i claim the balance of my time. i'll close by saying reiterating the department of defense has not nor ever before requested this language, and over 20 of my republican colleagues recognize this. very real truth. voting against this exact language and understanding that responsible conservation and strong national defense go hand in hand. in closing i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. t the gentlelady from -- for what purpose does gentlelady from maryland seek recognition? ms. elfreth: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 31 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment number 32 will not be offered. ing it-r it is now in order to considered amendment number 33 printed in part a of house report 119-2556789 for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. rouzer: to speak on the amendment at the desk. the chair: the chair will designated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33, printed in part a of house report number 119-255, offered

by mr. rouzer of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. rouzer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. rouzer:00 thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of my amendment to include the almost bye fairness act in the bill before us today providing the lumbee tribe of north carolina the full federal recognition they have been unfairly denied for decades. throughout recorded history, the lumbee tribe comprised of nearly 60,000 members has called southeastern north carolina home. despite their long history and cohesive culture, the lumbee have never had access to the same federal benefits enjoyed by every other federally recognized tribe. during once referred to as the termination era, congress passed the lumbee act of 1956 recognizing the tribe yet denying them the federal rights and protections afforded to other federally recognized tribes.

beginning in 1978, the federal government began rectifying the damage done during this era. since then congress has stepped in, reversed its previous actions, and recognized 23 tribes through legislation re-establishing their relationship with the federal government. legislation to rectify this for the lumbee tribe has been introduced in congress more than 30 times with broad bipartisan support. in the past two congresses, in fact, the house passed its legislation under suspension, most recently on december 17, 2024. outside of congress the lumbee fairness act has the support of 236 tribes across the country who have repeatedly cited the unfair treatment of the tribe under the 1956 lumbee act. today, congress can take a major step forward to end the unfair and unjust treatment of the lumbee tribe once and for all. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman from -- mr. rouzer: mr. speaker. the chair: without objection exception, the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. rouzer: i thank the speaker. i'd now like to provide up to one minute for my good colleague from north carolina, mark harris. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: thank you so much for your mr. harris: thank you for your leadership on this and for the time. for too long, the lumbee tribe of north carolina has been denied full federal recognition. today is a chance to make it

right. the lumbee people are a core part of my district and the great state of north carolina and i'm honored to be their advocate in washington. i know firsthand that they are salt of the earth, hardworking patriots who deserve access to federal services like their tribal counterparts. we must take legislative action to fix this problem and amend the 1956 law that currently prohibits this access. last congress members across the aisle, as was already mentioned, overwhelmingly voted to restore these rights to the lumbee tribe. there wasn't time for the bill to clear the senate. today is the opportunity to get this crucial issue across the finish line. a vote today for the lumbee people will fix a historic injustice and i urge support of this amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. rouzer: thank you, mr.

speaker. i i'd like to yield up to one minute to my friend addison from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mcdowell: my state of north carolina has recognized the lumbee tribe for hundreds of years. in 1956, congress acknowledge the lumbee tribe but cruelly denied them the services and benefits accorded to -- afforded to other federally recognized tribes that mistake has never been correct. finally, congress has the opportunity to right its wrong. the lumbees are more than 55,000 strong, making them the largest tribe east of the mississippi they have defended this nation in uniform. they've contributed to our economy. and preserved a proud heritage that strengthen ours state and our country. today, this house has an opportunity to finally deliver

justice for the people of the dark water, for north carolina, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. rouzer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina has the only time remaining in the debate. mr. rouzer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield up to one minute to my good friend, tim moore, of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one munn. mr. moore: thank you. we are not here today to recognize the lumbee tribe of north carolina because the lumbee tribe were already recognized by the united states congress in 1956. we are, however, here today to right a wrong. to end the termination era of indian policy and to take the lumbee out of the legal limb beau they have been in for almost 70 years. s the job of this congress to right the wrongs of the past. during the early 1900's, the lumbee had numerous indian

agents sent by the u.s. government to go to the homelands, to study them and determine if they were in fact indian. each time the indian agents returned to the district of columbia they reported back that these were indeed indian people. indian people who had survived disease, warfare and colonization. i know the lumbee personally. er that resilient, strong, proud people. the lumbee have served this country never branch of the military. they contribute to our society. the lumbee have a strong faith in god. they are good friends who value education, hard work, and community. i am proud to stand with the lumbee and urge this body to vote today to end a decades-long wrong. with that, i reserve. choi the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina's time has expired. you have 15 seconds. use it wisely. mr. rouzer: thank you, mr. speaker. i am ready to yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in house report 119-255. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in part a of house report 119-255, offered by mr. meeks of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. meeks: i yield myself such time as i shall use. the chair: the gentleman may proceed. mr. meeks: i rise in strong support of my amendment to the ndaa which would finally repeal

both the 2002 and the 1991 authorizations for use of military force or aumf's. these aumf's are long obsolete. by remaining on the books these aumf's only risk abuse by administrations of either party to sanction military force that congress has not consented or approved. it is time for congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace. its article 1 war powers. y removing these open-ended aumf's once and for all. i'm thankful to my colleagues who have worked in the past on these repeals, they nearly passed both chambers in the 117th and 118th congress. i'm particularly thankful to representatives roy and massie and many co-sponsors who have joined this bipartisan effort. this amendment is going to pass because a clear majority of this

house agree it's time to close these chapters of endless wars. i am prepared to fight in conference to get this over the finish line. it's time to, for once and for all, end these forever wars. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mast: i rise in opposition to this, i'm going to say for procedural reasons. but there are procedures that are important here and the ranking member should know this as a member of the foreign affairs committee. we have sole jurisdiction over powers of war. what goes on abroad with war is not flippant activity. it affects the lives of soldiers, sailor, marines,

airmen, that are stationed abroad in europe, in asia, latin america, the middle east, and while i agree with a lot of the comments that the ranking member just made about reasons to say there should be sunsets on aumf, i didn't hear everything that my colleague, mr. roy said, i'm sure, undoubtedly we have agreement on why there should be sunsets on these thing. it cannot be done without bringing in the centcom commanders and this commander and this commander and saying, what are your thoughts on this? what effects does this a have on our ability to react or deploy? what effects does this have on those down range in counterterrorism operations as we speak? what needs to be put back in place in order for us to not be afoul of something that we're doing right now? and these are questions that

were not asked, and the answers were not given. this goes beyond just our generals in the pentagon. it goes to our secretaries. goes to others. and absolutely answers questions that i'm committed to asking. and answers that i'm committed to finding the answer to. and in a timely way. i consider it to be vitally important. again, we have, i think, probably large agreement on reasons to sunset things. but it should not be done in absence of doing something of this gravity in the proper way. i thank you for giving me time to rise in opposition as much as we find matters of agreement. so thank you. i yield. chip the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: thank you. in response to the chairman i want to say we asked those questions in the 117th and 118th congress and continue to ask the

same questions. got the answers. i think it's time to move on and get this done. so i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. roy. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. roy: i thank the gentleman from new york. proud to work with him and others of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. to stand for a simple proposition. that 23 years after this chamber authorized force, at a time when most of the members who did so are not even here, at a time when numerous facts have changed, after saddam hussein was captured in 2003. was executed in 2006. when troops were withdrawn, then we wept back in regarding isis and then out by 2021. that we should not be operating under a 23-year-old authorization of the use of

military force. we can do better than that. we are not touching 2001. we're not touching 2001. we are touching 2002 anded 991. come on. look. we don't need to have congress effectively modern day declaring war and then leaving it in place for a quarter of a freaking century or in this case 34 years since 1991. we can do better. we want to actually authorize force, deliberate, vote, an authorize force. but article 1 has to mean something. please. support this bill. to end and endless authorization of force. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. you have the only time remaining. mr. meeks: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york has the only time remaining. mr. meeks: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california,

ms. jacobs. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. jacobs: thank you, mr. chairman. these aumf's were literally voted on when i was 2 years old and 13 years old respectively and now i'm old enough to be a member of congress. let's be clear. presidents from both parties have abused these aumf's and my general ration is tired of these endless, forever wars. but we know that president trump will exploit, bend, and break any law. the courts have even said it. that's why this body should leave no ambiguity, no wiggle room, no daylight about our congressional internal and congressional authority. congress has the sole constitutional right to declare war. not president trump or any other president. and yet we've already seen this president take unauthorized military strikes in place like yemen and somalia and syria and iraq and earlier this year launched strikes on iran without congressional authorization and

he's considering striking venezuela. this body should not sit idly by while the president makes a mockery of the constitution and our laws. we, only we, have the power to declare war. i urge my colleagues to pass our bipartisan agreement and repeal these outtated aumf's. the chair: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in perms toward the president. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has three quarters of a minute remaining. mr. meeks: i yield to mr. mills -- i yield to mr. mills the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three quarters of a minute. mr. mills: thank you so much. as my colleagues have pointed out it's simple. article 1, section 8, clause 11 through 13 is war powers of congress, granted to us, given to us. it states clearly congress shall

have the power to declare war, grant letters of marquee reprisal and make captures on land and water. this key thing is congress shall have power. not advocating -- abdicating our roles and responsibility, not having endless wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives. we need to make sure we have the power. this is simple. we have abdicated and abdicated and abdicated to where article 1 no longer as the powers it initially had. we must get that back. i support that and thunk for this time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is -- the gentleman from florida is

requesting a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new yorke floride postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment a in report 215-105. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 253 printed in part a of 215, offered by mr. rose of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. rose, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. rose: i ask unanimous consent all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record.

the chair: covered by general leave. mr. rose: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rose: mr. chair, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 3838, the streamlining procurement for effective execution and delivery and the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2026. my amendment is intended to address the janet mellow fraud case, the civilian who pleaded guilty to stealing over $100 million intended for the 4-h military partnership grant program. the 4-h partnership program serves 4-h clubs in many military installation youth centers and includes 4-h positive youth programming, engaging in hands-on learning, day and overnight summer camps including military team adventure camps. we as a nation ask so much of our military families, frequent

moves can be essentially difficult for children, especially difficult. however, the 4-h military partnership program can serve as a lifeline to military families by providing continuity as it is often the case that a family can move from one installation to another and maintain active participation in 4-h programs because they are located at so many military installations. janet mellow ruthlessly plundered more than $100 million from this program meant to support the children of our military heroes. this calculated betrayal was not only a staggering act of theft but a cruel assault on the very families who sacrifice the most for our nation's freedom. by draining critical resources, she robbed military children of the opportunities and security promised from the 4-h. the american people deserve answers and they deserve to know how such a monumental fraud was

allowed to fester in the shadows for so long. my amendment requires a report on how this fraud was missed, what red flags were ignored, and what fixes are needed to prevent this from ever happening again. the house passed my amendment last congress, but unfortunately, it was not included in the final bill. i'm proud to reintroduce this amendment again this congress with slightly adjusted reporting requirements. i would also note that for my colleagues my office sought and received technical assistance on this amendment from the office of the secretary of defense controller. mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a press release from the department of justice describing this fraud in greater detail. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. rose: mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> to claim the time in opposition, though i'm not opposed.

the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i have no opposition to the amendment. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. rose: i have for further speakers and am prepared to close and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. rose: i thank my colleague for not opposing this amendment. the money was stolen from taxpayers undetected from 2016-2023. i urge members to vote yes on my amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is from the amendment offered by mr. rose of tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes -- further proceedings offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number five, consisting of 26, 31, 32, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 27 70, 272, 273,

274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 2977 and 298 printed in house report 255 offered by mr. rogers of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 282, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers and the gentleman from washington each controls 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to my friend, the chairman of the financial services, mr. hill of arkansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hill: i thank chairman rogers for the opportunity to visit on this en bloc.

i appreciate your leadership guiding the ndaa once again successfully on a bipartisan basis through the house. and while i will support this en bloc set of amendments, i'd be rehis if i didn't bring to light an amendment that's included in this en bloc that i believe needs more deliberation. i appreciate the intentions of the sponsor, you -- but i believe we need to carefully consider some of the details. this amendment nearly duplicates the advanced powers of the defense production act which is something the house financial services committee and the senate banking committee are in the midst of a thorough re-authorization, including happily and proactively consulting with our colleagues on the armed services committee and our members throughout both sides of the hill. i note that i say the amendment narrowly duplicates the d.p.a. because there are significant differences that should raise concerns about the text in this

amendment. over the course of 75 years, congress has built in crucial safeguards to the defense production act. the amendment does not include these safeguards. here are just a few examples. under the defense production act, the pentagon is limited in its use of financial assistance to domestic industry as well as certain entities located in our five i's partner countries. even in those countries, our closest, most reliable allies in the world, the d.p.a. has strong oversight language to prevent offshoring to foreign companies. this amendment, if enacted into law, would allow the pentagon to use subsidies and purchase commitment in 190 countries around the globe, including, mrd cuba. we must carefully evaluate these policy choices at a time when we're working to bring jobs back

to the united states and reverse decades of manufacturing decline. under the previous administration, president biden sought to use the d.p.a. for things like making more baby formula and residential heat pumps. the amendment would only ensure such efforts in future administrations. and this is just not a likelihood but a certainty that it could in fact be used outside the defense arena. these are only a handful of my concerns, and i think it would be better for this debate to happen more shulsomely between the committees. i invite you to commit to addressing these concerns in working with our financial services members through the ndaa property and i thank for you yielding me time today. mr. rogers: i agree with chairman hill we have much ground to cover.

this amendment is a good attempt to break through some of the bureaucracy and i commit to chairman hill we will work with him and his committee on the defense industrial based matters that arise in conference under the ndaa. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davidson: thank you to the chairman and ranking member. thank you for your work for keeping the ndaa bipartisan. there's such a vital focus on national security here and there's truly good reforms but as mr. hill highlighted, the defense production act has broader implications than just the department of defense. and this turf war is frankly as old as the defense production act since 1950. when chief of staff james a. baker iii was highlighting this he highlighted that tension and

since then all kinds of things have taken place with the defense production act and this is the first time to bring it up since the covid pandemic. the h.h.s. is being used and there is work ahead as we psych to modernize this. i look forward to your cooperation. and as chairman of the national security finance subcommittee, this authorization does go through my subcommittee here and happy to work with colleagues across the spectrum here to get a good product across the finish line. i'm opposed to this en bloc because of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to yield one minute to mr. self of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. self: i rise in support of my amendments 476 and 478. we are at an inflection point in american history. china is investing heavily in

a.i., integrating it into its military and economy. america cannot afford to fall behind. my first amendment expands a.i. pilot programs in logistics, cyberdefense, intelligence, and maintenance. a.i. is a vital force multiplier, cutting costs, speeding up decisions, keeping our war fighters ahead. it also mandates regular reports to congress for swift and informed action to maintain our edge. my second amendment ensures an immediate pay raise for department of war blue-collar workers, the mechanics and technicians who keep our bases and equipment ready. these americans have yet to receive a 2025 pay raise because the fully partisan committee that was supposed to represent these blue-collar workers failed in its mission and had to be dissolved. i look forward to working with the department of war on implementing recommendations to make sure these crucial workers are paid what they deserve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.

mr. rogers: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, ms. houlahan. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. houlahan: i rise in response to this bill. i am happy with the bill we delivered to the floor this week and it was bipartisan and supported our men and women in uniform and strengthened our national defense. it was an honor to work so closely with chairman rogers and ranking member smith on that bill. unfortunately, the toxically amendedded bill before us is no longer that. not only have a number of very difficult amendments been added to the original markup, but also since the markup, this administration has recklessly and dangerously deployed the national guard to american cities without the request or permission of either state or local officials p. for good

reason, the governor of each state makes the decision about when and where to deploy the national guard, not presidents who are trying to score cheap political points and who are trying to divide our nation. i am very proud to be a veteran and as ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee, it's my responsibility to make sure we're taking care of our troops and deploying them responsibly and legally. but you don't need to be a veteran or a member of a military family to see what this administration has done with our military. it's divisive and shameful and irresponsible. it's divisive, shameful, and irresponsible for us to ask our soldiers to act as local police officers, a role that undermines our readiness for actual conflicts. it is divisive, shameful, and irresponsible we force them to leave their families and jobs for an uncertain period of time with uncertain pay and benefits. and it is most certainly divisive, shameful, and irresponsible when we force them to spend their days picking up trash at a cost of millions to the taxpayer. our national guard is designed

and trained, indeed, purpose-built to serve key roles in domestic emergencies, natural disasters, and in deployment overseas. when we stray from that mission, we put our national security at risk and we disrespect these men and women. for these reasons, at the appropriate time, i will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. if the house rules permit it, i would have offered the emotion with an i have an amendment at the desk to this bill, a simple amendment to require the state governor must dissent the national guard be deployed. i know my colleagues may disagree, including those running for governor of their home state. i ask these members and all those who believe in federalism and states' rights to have the courage to support this important amendment today. at the end of this debate, i will insert into the record the text of this amendment. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this motion to recommit. i yield back. point of order

the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to mr. stauber. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. stauber: i want to thank the leadership, chairman rogers and ranking member smith. i rise in support of the en bloc package which contains four of my amendments. the first requires the secretary of the air force and director of the air national guard to work together to modernize the air national guard's fighter fleet. last year's ndaa required a similar report but this report did not fulfill several requirements like consultation from the director of the air national guard and recapitalization plans for all fighter wings. it was entirely inadequate. the average age of our fighting fleet has grown from 10 years to 30 years and 51% of the air force service retained fighting force is in the air national

guard. we need to act to modernize our fleet. my second amendment will provide a two-year funding mechanism for the state sponsorship program. that is a key security cooperation program that enable ours national guard units to train with united states allies and increase the interoperability, compatibility and overall readiness of the national guard. budget volatility has brought fiscal uncertainty to this program, putting its future in jeopardy. a two-year funding mechanism will bring stability to the program of my third amendment will require the d.o.d. to increase the efficient i have so the funeral honors program. the funeral honors program helps the families of fallen veterans give their loved ones the dignified, respectful burl they have earned. this program relies on local veteran service organizations to provide these funeral hon no, sir and vso's receive stipends for costs incurred. last year, it was brought to my attention that some v.s.o.'s had

their sty spends withheld due to budget tear shortfall thebes guard's priority needs taking priority my amendment will require the d.o.d. to identify best practices and cost effective ways to protect the operational needs of the national guard while ensuring v.s.o.'s are supported in their selfless dedication to our nation's he remy last amendment will require the d.o.d. to address our crippling reliance on communist china for minerals. we rely on communist china for roughly 80% of our mineral, used to produce everything from cell phones to fighter jets. with the flip of a switch, communist china would cease all exports of critical minerals to the united states and have started reducing their exports. further we have turned a blindy to the atrocities committed by our suppliers. communist china earns 13 of the 19 industrial mines in the congo and utilize child slave labor and follow zero environmental laws.

my amendment would require d.o.d. to help develop a strategy to reshore critical mineral production and end our reliance on communist china. i urge my colleagues to support this en bloc package and i yield back. mr. rogers: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i'm prepared to close. are you done with speakers at this point? mr. rogers: i'm done with speakers, ready to close as well. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of my time. three things i want to do in closing here, first of all, really recognize the efforts of all of the staff that were involved in bringing to us this point. to get the bill to the floor. certainly the house armed services committee staff, the bipartisan staff, ably leaded -- led on both sides of the aisle. it's a long process. thousands of amendments generated. thousands more ideas that they have to work their way through

to get the bill through the markup, get it to the floor. certainly the rules committee staff works overtime processing all those amendments. and the floor staff. thank you all very much. for putting up with this. this process was not as bad as it has been in the past so i'm not sure there was a good thing but there was a lot less stuff that came out here but everyone these do so much work on this to make this happen. so i really thank the staff for their incredible work. it's a fine testimony to how vital the government employees are to making our country run and i really appreciate. that second, i really want to thank chairman rogers, all the members of the house armed services committee and their respective staffs, for the product that we produced out of committee. it was a bipartisan product that really focused on what we needed to do to make the defense department better and make sure that we supported the men and women who serve in the military. they're all -- there are all manner of external issues that

are focused more on partisan advantage, one way or the other. the typically get thrust at us. we resisted. stayed focused on the policy. it's not that there aren't disagreements on policy. there are partisan disagreements where republicans tend to be in one place but democrats in the other. it was all around the focus of what is the best way to run the department of defense and that is a legitimate debate to have. chairman rogers handled that incrennelly well, it was a very fair debate, fair discussion and we produced what i think is an excellent product. it's worth remembering what's in that base bill. single biggest thing is acquisition which is every little bit as important as it is behring to talk about. it's hard to dive into the details of who is making this decision, the other decision. the bottom line is it takes too long to buy the equipment, update and get the innovative technologies we need in the modern world. the pace of change has never been this rapid.

a.i. drones. counterdrones. all manner of different technologies. we have got to get those in the hands of the war fighter. vastly more quickly and vastly less expensively than we currently do. and the focus on this bill is absolutely right to do this. we also continue to prioritize quality of life issues for men and women who serve in our military and their families as well we should. there's a lot of very good provisions in that bill and we produced that product. the rules process was a different thing. it was a very, very partisan exercise. in which, if republicans made a request, they got them, including the weird little thing we just went through with some financial services issue that i don't understand why that's in the bill, it shouldn't be well, i do understand why it's in the bill. because the speaker has a very difficult time saying no to people he ought to say no to. we need to work on that. but that created a partisan process out of what was a

bipartisan process. in an of itself that's problematic. what it means is democrats don't get to adequately participate in the process. we didn't get any of the amendments and debates we waned. not a sickle, solitary one. meanwhile all manner of different issues that are culture war partisan issues were allowed in. i fear many of those are going to pass. we will see. if those amendments are defeated we'll wind up in a different place. if they pass we'll have a bill that's no longer bipartisan. this year, as ms. houlahan just highlighted, there's one particular thing that's problematic. and that is we are not exercising oversight of the chief executive in the manner in which we should. we have become vastly more partisan in that regard as well. i have served under, i lose track of how many president, i think it's five now. every single one of those, republicans would always have complaints about a republican president. democrats would have complaints about a democratic president. now, not as many as would go the

other way, to be sure. but there were always those on a bipartisan basis who said, the executive branch shouldn't do that. this is the first term i've ever seen that completely silenced. there is no effort whatsoever for congress to criticize anything the president does. that's a problem. that upsets the balance of power, the checks and planses that were put in place by our founders, to make sure that we continue to be a constitutional republic. nation based on the constitution and laws, not on any one individual. and we see that played out most starkly with the way the united states military is currently being used in our city. washington, d.c., in los angeles, and even the specter of the president threatening the city of chicago that he will invade them like a scene from "apocalypse now," that should trouble everybody. i don't care whether you're a

conservative, democrat, independent, republican, liberal, whatever. all right. you should be troubled. even if, by the way, as i do, you have profound concerns about crime in our areas. and i have profound concerns about the way some of those cities are using the criminal justice system. i have concerns in my own area. the answer to that not sending in the united states military. the way i've come to sum it up is crime is a problem, fascism isn't the answer. more police and stronger communities. that's the answer. we need to exercise oversight. because it violates the law and undermines the readiness of the united states military. they are supposed to be trained to defend us against our enemies and adversary, not to engage in domestic law enforcement. we should have a conversation about. that and exercise oversight. we is also the problem that the whole signalgate thing, where classified information was shared in a way that it should

not be shared. and there should be no disagreement with that. we didn't exercise oversight on that either. so stepping aside from all these issues, letting the president doing do what he wants to do, and last point, this attack on that boat down in the caribbean is incredibly problematic. this is an expansion of the war powers the president that we've never seen before. if the president has the power, on his own, without even notifying congress, much less with us exercising oversight of it, to declare war on any drug cartel in the world whenever he wants to, then our constitution, article 1, pretty much ceases to have meaning. we just had an amendment offered to repeel it, the argument was for article 1. for the united states government. we have abdicated that role at this point in a way that we have never done before. that's a problem. and it's something the rules

committee should have permitted to us really debate through a veer reese of amendments on the floor and they did not. and i am troubled by that. so we'll see how the amendment process goes. again, beneath all of that is a really good bill. but a lot of very good people worked hard to produce. i hope when we get to the end of the process we pass the bill and send it off to the president we get that bill back because it's really important that we pass it. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i support this bipartisan en bloc amendment worked in advance with the minority. i also want to take a minute to completely agree with what my ranking member said about the staff. not only the committee staff but the floor staff here and the rules committee staff in moving

what is the biggest bill that this congress has to move each year in such and expeditious fashion. you are all to be commended. thank you very much. i can't overstate how much i appreciate the ranking member and his partnership and leadership in this process. he is, as you can tell, a thought lead for the this area, but also just a great partner in advancing this very important piece of legislation. and this is a good bill. it's a very important bill. it reforms the pentagon's broken acquisition system, continues historic improvements in the quality of life of our service members and their families, builds a ready, capable, and lethal fighting force necessary to address global threats an addresses president trump's peace through strength agenda. the house will work its will on the amendments before us today but i urge all members to support final passage of the bill. it's critical we get this bill to conference and ultimately to the president's desk.

the threats we face today are more complex and precarious than at any point in the last 80 years. the department needs the authorities this ndaa provides to stay ahead of these threats. i urge all members to support this en bloc amendment and the underlying bill and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. mr. rogers: i do now move that the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.

the chair: mr. speaker, having had under consideration h.r. 38 38 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3838 and has come to no resolution thereon. clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

off the floor lawmakers are talking about how to handle funding the federal government. watch live coverage of the house here on c-span. >> c-span. democracy unfiltered. >> we're just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service. looking with theoretician providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> watch c-span's coverage of the ceremonies in commemoration of the 9/11 attacks. watch on c-span's "washington journal" and then at 8:30 we'll take you to the remembrance ceremony at the 9/11 memorial with j.d. vance in attendance. and then the observance ceremony and then the national ceremony in shanksville, pennsylvania. watch live the commemoration ceremonies marking the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks thursday morning on the c-span networks.

host: before we get to what's happening in the caribbean, talk to us about the pentagon's reaction to yesterday's strike on hamas leaders in qatar? guest: it was one of surprise. we waited for hours to get a good sense of who knew what when and did israel notify the pentagon or were your own military assets in the region, the reason we knew something was headed to qatar was able to relay a message though it didn't land in time. the qatarys said they got the message from the u.s. as missiles were falling on them. host: is it typical for israel to notify the united states? it's not the first time they've gone after hamas. is it typical they notify the pentagon before the attack.